03-10-1975 - Regular Meeting - Minutesti
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 10, 1975.
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
Pledge of Allegiance was led by Girl Scout Junior Troop 481 —
Janese Geer, Christy Jacobson, Stacey Mullens and Sandy Shaw. The in—
vocation was given by Councilman Gary Miller.
ROLL CALL
` Present:
Mayor Shearer; Councilmen: Browne,
Miller, Chappell, Tice
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Zimmerman, Public Service Dir.,
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Michael Miller, Planning Director
John Lippit.t, City Engineer
Eric Cohen, Staff Reporter — Sentinel
Mark Landsbaum, Staff Reporter — S.G.V..D.T.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilman Browne, seconded by
Councilman Miller and carried, to approve
minutes of the meetings of February 18,
1975 and February 24, 1975.
REORGANIZATION'0_F CITY (To be handled just prior to the close
of the meeting. Explained in further
detail by the Mayor)
Mayor Shearer: I would like to make a few comments now
because some of the people that I would
like to hear this may not be around at the
ending of the meeting. Th is will be sort of my farewell address.
I think this past year, at least for me personally, has been a very
wonderful experience. It has been rewarding and educational and to a
great extent humbling. I think it has been a good year for the City.
I am a little disappointed that in some areas things did not proceed
a little faster. I wish the CBD were further along; I wish we were
further along with our acquisition of Sunset School; and I wish we had
made more progress towards the resolution of the tri—city merger.
These three things I think will be enough to give the next Mayor a goal
to shoot for.
As I look around at my colleagues I see
several new faces — I think this should give cause to those of us that
have been here a little longer to pause and reflect that we shouldn't
get too built up in our own self—esteem, because there is always some—
body ready, willing and able to step in and take over our position.
There.is a verse from the bible that warns people not to think more
highly of themselves than they ought to think and I think that is
applicable:
• I think it would ill behoove me if I
didn't make a few thanks. First I would like to thank my colleagues
on the Council.for making it possible for me to serve as Mayor and
secondly, for the help they have given in this past t rioltvedomonths.
Of course, thanks to staff. City Council really does as much work as
the staff does. It would be;inappropriate if I began to name names
— 1 —
CITY COUNCIL Pa e Two
3�10/75
because if I did I surely would leave someone outg but all of the
staff, starting with the City Manager on down through the City I
think has given wonderful support. And of course last but not least,
the person who in my opinion has given up the most and probably gets
the least out of any one of us serving as Mayorl, and that is the wife.
•She put up with a lot of absences on my part and got very little in
return. So thanks there. I will sum up by saying I think it has
been a good year and that we have a lot more good years to come and
maybe if we are around long enough we can try it again sometime.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayort I would also like to say
something in case some of the people
would be leaving before the reorganization
of our Council takes place. I would like to say it has been an
excellent year under your leadership. With the change of three
Councilmen it has certainly been a greater burden on your efforts to
keep the Council going in the right direction and keep us informed.
The experience of being a Mayor is an outstanding one, as.you,have
related and as I said before, I think everyone should have that
i
opportunity. Some do t better than others and I,would.say your
tenure as Mayor has been an excellent tenure and.probably you will -
be back there again in the not too distant future as ybur.term con-
tinues on. As I sit here as your Mayor Pro tem. I would say that
we can't complain about last year under any circumstance, we have
had a moving ahead Council, one that has accomplished a tremendous
amount in benefits for the citizenry as well as the business com-
munity and I commend you for the efforts that you have given our
City, because a Mayor gives a tremendous amount of his time and
talents. It has been a pleasure serving under you this past year.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor, as you recall I was newly
• elected last year and the first traumatic
experience I had to go through was the
reorganization of the Council, the electing of the Mayor and Mayor
Pro tem. In such instances there is always one or two people vying
for that position. You have to do a.lot of soul searching when you
select that person. I felt that my decision was right in my own
mind even though it didn't meet with the political atmosphere of
other people. I am very happy to say, Chet, I am proud I made the
;position I did because I felt the party who held this office would
have to have full-time to devote to the duties, a man who would
hold the interests of the City first and pit forth that extra effort
that it' takes to accomplish the job. To me you more than fill the
requisites that I place in upholding this position. I want to
personally thank you for a job well done, I think your contribution
has,ceft.iihly etched an outstanding notch of honor for your dignity
in your tenure, Mayor.
Councilman Tice:
the years as a member of
support all along and you
term well.
Mr. Mayor - I have been on Council for
only a short time but have had the
pleasure to observe your actions over
Council and as Mayor and you have had my
have done an excellent job and served your
Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor - it has been my privilege to
• serveunderyou and the job you have
done, as far as I am concerned, has been
outstanding.
(Audience agreed by their applause; Mayor thankedeveryone one.)
- 2 -
•
CITY COUNCIL
Page Three
3/10/75
CONSENT CALENDAR The Mayor explained the procedure of the
Consent Calendar items and asked if there
were any comments on any of the following
items:
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD Re site for proposed new National Cemetery
OF SUPERVISORS for California. (Council)
b) VISITING NURSES ASSOC. Request for a Non -Profit business license.
EAST SAN GARRSEL (Approve subject to review by City
VALLEY.,: Attorney and City'Clerk)
c) MRS. JEAN G. CARTER
724 E. Herring Ave.,
West Covina
d) GATTMANN & MITCHELL
e) VETERANS OF FOREIGN
WARS, WEST COVINA
POST NO. 8620
2. PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF ACTION
3. RECREATION & PKS. COMM.
• SUMMARY OF ACTION
4. PERSONNEL BOARD
MINUTES
ACTION ITEMS
5. HUMAN RELATIONS COMM.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
Re opposition to Precise Plan No. 667 -
DMV facilities.. (Receive and file)
Re proposed Garvey Avenue name change.
(Refer to Hearing- Item- 8--2)
Re City's Veterans' Preference Policy.
(Refers to City Attorney Item E-1.)
March 5, 1975. (Accept and file)
February 25, 1975. (Accept and file)
February 11, 1975. (Receive and file)
From 2/11/75: Refer to City Attorney's
Agenda Item E-1.
,-. ` alvk�
February 27, 1975. (46dnTi—fi-Y'e)
6. YOUTH ADVISORY COMM.
MINUTES February 11, 1975. (Adj. Reg. Mtg.)
February 25, 1975. (Adj. Reg. Mtg.
(Receive and file)
7. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR RELEASE OF BONDS
a) PRECISE PLAN NO. 298 LOCATION: North side of Puente Avenue,
REV. 2 West side of Lark Ellen Avenue.
JAMES P. HUFFMAN Accept sidewalk and trenching for
street lights improvements and authorize
release of Cash Deposit in the amount of
• $700. (Staff recommends acceptance)
b),PRECISE PLAN NO. 599 LOCATION: South side of Cameron Avenue,
REV. 1 - WESTERN west of Sunset Avenue.
FINANCE CONSTRUCTION Accept sidewalk and driveway improvements
and authorize release of Cash Deposit in
the amount of $460. (Staff recommends
acceptance)
3
CITY COUNCIL Page Four
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd. 3/10/75
c) PARCEL MAP NO. 1265 LOCATION: North side of Cameron
L. M. NERENBAUM & ASSOC. Avenue between Walnut Creek Channel
and Toluca Avenue.
Accept sidewalk improvements and
authorize release of Cash Deposit in
• the amount of $420. (Staff recommends
acceptance.)
d) UNCLASSIFIED USE LOCATION: South side of Merced Avenuep
PERMIT NO. 167 west of Glendora Avenue.
BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH Accept sidewalk and driveway improve -
LABS ments and authorize release of Cash
Deposit'in the amount of $750. (Staff
recommends acceptance)
e) UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT' LOCATION: West side of.Azusa Avenue,
NO. 1559 REV. 1 north of Rowland Avenue.
WEST COVINA MINIATURE Accept sidewalk improvements and
GOLF authorize release of Cash Deposit in
the amount of $750. (Staff recommends
acceptance)
8. ABC APPLICATIONS Chief of Police recommends: No Protest.
a) George K. Fotiou dba THE WATERWHEEL
731 N. Azusa Ave. #13 648 S. Sunset Avenue
West Covina
b) West.".Coijin',j.,,rR6staijtants-p1 Inc. d.ba LORD CHARLEY'S
8689 9th Street 730 N..Azusa Avenue
Cucamonga
• 9. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
a) Edward Firestone, Attorney, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Holland,
1324 Aileron, La Puente, re accident on 2/5/75 with city
vbhi6le. (Deny and refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier)
b) Arnold L. Wood, Attorney, on behalf of LaVern Johnson as
guardian ad litem of Gregory Johnson, a minor (822 S. Montezuma
Way, W.C.) re Claim for Personal Injuries on 12/3/74 at
Orangewood Park. (Deny and refer to City Attorney and
Insurance Carrier)
c) Five Brothers, Inc., 5408 E. Washington Blvd., L A., (Driver:
Charles William Sain, 723 N. Walnuthaven Or.,, W.E.) re traffic
accident 12/15/74 at intersection of Lark Ellen Avenue and
Badillo Street due to alleged malfunctioning traffic signals.
(Deny and refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier)
(Council requested the withdrawal-,�df Item 1-a and 2-a from the
Consent Calendar for further discussion.)
Motion by Councilman Browne to approve Consent Calendar items with
the exception of Item l-a and 2-a; seconded by Councilman Miller
and carried on roll call vote as follows:
• AYES:.Brownet Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM 1-a Codhcilman Tice advocated support of
NATIONAL CEMETERY the National Cemetery at March AFB,
as requested by the County of River-
side Board of Supervisors; Council pointed out it was a centralized
location and needed.
4
CITY COUNCIL Page Five
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd. 3/10/75
Motion by Councilman Tice to approve request received from the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors for support of National
Cemetery at March AFB; seconded by Councilman Browne and carried.
ITEM 2-a Councilman Miller stated sometime back
PLANNING COMMISSION with regard to Precise Plan 665 he had
• SUMMARY OF ACTION said "no" and before voting,"" at
this time he would like to personally
review the.plans; Mayor Shearer explained it was proper for Council
to call this matter up if Councilman Miller so desired. Council
had no objections, Precise Plan 665 called up by Council.
GENERAL AGENDA ITEMS
AWARD OF BIDS
BID NO. 75-60 Bids received in the Office of the Pur-
TRUCK MOUNTED AERIAL LIFT chasing Agent up to 10:00 A.M., on
Wednesday, February 19, 1975, and
thereafter publicly opened and read.
Held over from February 24, 1975, to
this date. Council reviewed.Controller's report. A total of'four
bids received, reflecting net prices, including the trade-in of the
1963 Asplundh-model Aerial Hoist:
Al Asher & Sons, Inc., Los Angeles, Ca.
Skyworker Model 6950C $24?005.82
Asplundh Equipment Sales & Service, Azusa, Ca,
Primary Bid $249910.42
(Alternate Bid: $239532.00)
California Truck Equipment, Los Alamitos, Ca.
•Hi -Ranger Series SF $30,350.71
Mustang Equipment Co., Whittier, Ca.
Pitman Model HS 50 MN-2 $43,709.10
Motion by Councilman Chappell to approve awarding Bid No. 75-60
to Asplundh Sales and Service Company for one 1974 Asplundh Model
LR-50 at a total cost of $239532.00 including sales tax; seconded
by Councilman Tice and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS NOS. SP-75005 LOCATION: California Avenue at West
AND SP-75006 Covina Parkway; Vincent Avenue - San
Bernardino Freeway to Walnut Creek
Wash.
(Council reviewed Engineer's Status
Report)
Motion by Councilman Tice to refer discussion and decision to City
Manager's Agenda Item #G-9; seconded by Councilman Browne and
carried. .
•UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT LOCATION: SE corner of Azusa Avenue and
NO. 193 San Bernardino Freeway.
HELEN T. ANDERSON (Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
RESOLUTION NO. 5025 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNI.A, ACCEPT-
- 5 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC WKS: UNCLASS'IF.IED.USE--PERM IT';NO. `"193
Page Six
3/10/75
ING GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY HELEN T.
ANDERSON, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION.
Motion by Councilman Browne to waive further reading of said resolu—
tion; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried.
• Motion by Councilman Browne to adopt said resolution; seconded by
Councilman Miller and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PLANNING COMMISSION
TENTATIVE
TRACT
NO. 31102
LOCATION: North of Shadow Oak Drive and
(PCD-19
D.P.
#9)
west of Nogales Street.
TENTATIVE
TRACT
NO. 31472
REQUEST: Approval of three tentative
(PCD-1,
O.P.
#9)
tracts totaling 178 single family lots
TENTATIVE
TRACT
NO. 31481
on a 39.9 +/— acre parcel of land.
. (PCD-1,
D.P..#9)
Recommended by Planning Commission
KAUFMAN &
BROAD
Resolution No.' 2579.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor, I was present at the public
hearing conducted.by the Planning
Commission and I am in agreement with
their decision on the matter. They recommended 5 to 0 for approval.
Motion by Councilman Browne to approve. Tentative Tracts Nos. 31102,
31472 and 31481 (PCD-1, D.P. #9), as recommended by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2579; seconded by Councilman Miller and
iscarried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dave Saldana
1245 So.JS-hadylane
West Covina
Commander — W.C. Post 8620
Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the U.S.
I believe you gentlemen are recepients of
a letter that I forwarded to you from the
Veterans with regard to Veterans' Prefer—
ence, a matter before you tonight. I would
like to have permission to read this letter
at this time. (Read letter dated March 5/75
objecting to a time limitation on Veterans'
Preference.)
(Mayor Shearer advised this would be dis—
cussed by Council a little later on the agenda)
Mrs. Sola Music Mr. Mayor, I would like to go on record
3447 Helena Drive again saying that I believe the ordinance
West Covina underwhich I am being cited is unfair. I
have 82 names on a petition that I circulated
pertaining to the fact of my truck being parked in my driveway and the
82 names do not object to my being parked there.
(Mayor Shearer suggested Mrs. Music submit the petition, further saying
he thought she had made a very fine presentation two weeks ago and the
members of Council are well aware of her position and the matter is
•still under consideration by the Traffic Committee and unless she had
some new items other than a sincere desire on her part to have the
ordinance changed ...... Mrs. Music said before submitted the petition
she would like to have a copy made of same. T-he Mayor suggested that
she might use the City's copying machine to do so and to submit the
petition as early as possible so the Traffic Committee would have it
for their consideration. The Mayor suggested to Mr. Aiassa that the
Traffic Committee's report contain this petition to Council)
CITY COUNCIL Page Seven
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3/10/75
Mrs. Music: One further question, if I may. I am still
being cited with tickets and I was wondering
if my case is not resolved this evening will I
still be cited if I leave the truck in my driveway?
• Mayor Shearer: Mr. Wakefield, could you enlighten the Council -
since this is a violation, I assume a city
ordinance violation - I know we have in the past
asked that a moratorium be placed on certain enforcements. Would
that be the prerogative of the Council in this case!..
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the Council really doesn't have the
authority to suspend the provisions ofthe
West Covina Municipal Code; however, I understand
there was a moratorium in the enforcement of this particular section
so far as the Police Department was concerned which expired on the
1st of March. I am sure if it is the desire of the City Council that
there be a further extension of that moratorium the Police Department
would cooperate.
Mrs. Music: Mr. Mayor - I still have a problem.on..this -
if I am still being cited and I feel the.citing
is unfair who do I contact?
Mayor Shearer: As the law stands I think it is a legal law and
your only recourse is through the courts.
(Explained further; the City Attorney concurred)
HEARINGS
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION LOCATION: 2003, 20079 20199 20279 2033,
• NO. 490 - CITY INITIATED 21059 2111 & 2117 E. Garvey.
REQUEST: Approval of a Change of Zone
from R-1 (Single Family to MF-15 (Low
Density Multiple Family Zone.
Recommended by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2570. Held over from February 24, 1975. Hearing
closed and referred back to Planning Commission for review. Recommend-
ed by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2582.
(Mayor Shearer advised this matter was heard by Council on February
24, the motion for approval was defeated on a 2 to 2 vote and the
matter was referred back to the Planning Commission to determine if
possibly there was some compromise that could be worked out to fore-
stall,a potentially difficult situation.)
Mr. Miller Mr. Mayor and Council, pursuant to your
Planning Director instructions the staff did hold a meeting
.with the people in the area of Amar,
Shamwood, Idahome and Mardena on March 3 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers on an informational basis. Approximately 115 notices were
hand delivered and approximately 14 people attended the meeting. We
had a general discussion as to alternatives to the proposed zone
change ranging from commercial to multi -family to remaining single
family, to acquisition of the land for park purposes. Discussing the
development standards for the MF-15 zone we outlined some of the pro-
tections relating to privacy as well as noise, the advantages and dis-
• advantages were quite clear in their minds. It was staffs'
impression summarizing the meeting that the people in attendance under-
stood the situation and knew it was really making the best of a bad
situation and this information was presented to the Planning Commission
on March 5th. At the March 3rd meeting the people were told of the
March 5th meeting and that we would be considering this matter and on
the basis of the March 3rd meeting and that no one appeared before the
- 7 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS: ZC #490
Page Eight
3/10/75
Commission to make comment pro or con, the Planning Commission re-
affirmed their original recommendation to approve Zone Change #490
and the EIR. This matter is now before Council for final action and
does not require a public hearing but according to the City Attorney
the'Council, if they so desire, may open the matter for discussion.
• Mayor Shearer: Thank you. I think we will open�'it up for testi-
mony. And for the record we have recevied
several items. We have an item dated March loth
signed by Mr. and Mrs. K. Juul, 2027 East Mardena, opposed to the
change; a letter dated March 6th signed by Mr. Richard Chapman, 2104
East Mardena, opposed; an undated memo signed by Betty Brown,
2111 East Mardena in opposition; also a petition that is reported -to
have been circulated subsequent to our last meeting as of March 4, 1975,
these people are still opposed to the zone change and signed by what
appears to be approximately 66 signatures.
THE MAYOR OPENED ZONE CHANGE 490 FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, FOR OR AGAINST.
IN OPPOSITION
Richard Chapman (Sworn in at previous public hearing on this item)
2104 East Mardena About the meeting last Monday, I wasn't able to
West Covina attend due to prior business commitments.
Mr. Miller however did call me and offered to meet
with me at -a later date. I got back in town late and was tied up with
business and unable to meet him but I do thank him for that opportunity.
I would like to say the notices that were delivered for that meeting
last Monday we go ours last Saturday, two days before the meeting. I
don't know how many of you gentlemen are even home on weekends or
have prior commitments or can make a meeting on 48 hours notice. This
•may or may not account for some of the people not showing up. However
by the amount that showed up tonight this may or may not be the case at
all.
I would like to go through a few select points on
the Council's criteria for low density/multi-family purposes, and pick
out a few points I am in question of and that you gentlemen on the
Council that will be voting on this should have perfectly clear in your
minds before you vote on something like this.
Section 9205.1 - Criteria: A demonstrated public
need shall be established and it shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to provb`.that such a need exists. I think the only thing
shown was that the buildings there were somewhat rundown and could re-
main in a rundown state. I don't believe that establishes the need for
rezoning. I think there should be some other impact other than Cal -
Trans trying to sell the land. Subsection 2. Effect and Influence.
The effect of the proposed development on the school system. I brought
that up last time. I think it was brought up also at the Planning
Commission meeting last Monday and I don't believe a suitable answer
was ever given. I don't know if you gentlemen are aware of any impact
study on the schools or not. It is important in my mind. I hope it
is in yours. Subsection 5. Development Standards. A - Density.
The maximum number of dwelling units shall be 15. I refer to the
four development schemes that were presented tothe people attending the
meeting last Monday. If you work these out on a per acre basis, assum-
ing that since these lots are all under 1 acre in size assuming you
should ever get one package of the proper size, it works out to 14.33
units per acre. That is pretty close, right on the maximum size.
Part C of the same subsection. Site Size. I can't see where the
Planning Commission can make a special part of this ordinance to allow
under 1 acre when it specifically calls out for one acre. The question
I put to you gentlemen - what happens if this is rezoned - I believe
CITY COUNCIL Page Nine
HEARINGS: ZC #490 . 3/10/75
there are two or three lots in there steill owned by the public and
that is what is breaking up the one acre lots, if those people sell
are those lots still subject to MF-15? Or is this contingent on the
fact who ever gets the land does need one acre in size? Point 5 - G & I.
G states Ground Coverage shall not exceed an aggregate area of 55% of the
total lot, aggregate area shall be the total amount of land covered by
•residential structures, carpots, garages, etc. etc., shall be excluded.
I would like'to include that part and part I which states - the
minimum square feet for any dwelling listing it by bedrooms. I again
refer to the development schemes, 1 thru 4, that were given tothe
people at the meeting last week by the Planning Commission. I don't
know who drew these up but apparently they were not aware of these
requirements. If you look at development scheme 1 it shows duplexes,
it says 27.5' by 21.5' typical - that is a total square footage of
591 square feet, which is over 200 square feet less than the minimum.
The total aggregate in this parcel is 53% of the total part of the land
and that doesn't include sidewalks or anything else.
(Mayor Shearer asked the Planning Director if this was intended to be
a two story structure and Mr. Miller stated there is no limitation
whether it is one or two story and in that instant it would have to be
two story and would then be 300' over the minimum requirements.)
Mr. Chapman: Mr. Mayor, if you look at Part 4 it does denote
two story structure. I would assume in terms
of consistency and in good engineering practices
on something like this it would be annotated so. And No. 2 - the
total square foot buildable area was 3240 divided by 4 is 810' per
unit, just barely over the minimum. The aggregate area there is 79%
of the land or 24% over minimum. No. 3 - apparently the square foot-
age is acceptable assuming they.are all one bedroom apartments. Total
aggregate area is 63% or B% over your total minimum. No. 4 - where
it is denoted a two story dwelling, 57% aggregate land or 2% over.
If you gentlemen will just look at No. 4 and try and imagine yourself
living in something like that - a two story and then walk out over
the garage and try and imagine who is going to have the top floor
and the bottom and try and divide up the area - it is unimaginable to
me. What I want to bring up with this.is that this is not consistent
with your own rules and regulations for a MF-15 classification.
It concerns me if this can be drawn up and if it
is passed - this is something you gentlemen should certainly take
into consideration. It doesn't show much thought to me. It appears
to be something that is being forced through in a hurry for the
benefit of the Cal -,Trans people seeing as at the last meeting it was
brought out that the closing date on the bids was two days after the
next meeting. Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
(Councilman Tice asked Mr. Miller if he had explored the possibility
of that property being used for a professional type of use and
Mr. Miller advised staff had but the depth of the property and the
location in the vicinity of primarily residential uses from a land
use standpoint would be inappropriate and also would increase the
traffic flow far more than apartments would.)
• Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor, I voted "no" last time because of
the concern I had for the signatures given to
us and tonight I am looking at again signatures.
I did personally conduct my own personal survey down there and it
does show to me that the people are split about half and half on this.
I also find that two that had said "no" had great concern from the
CITY COUNCIL Page Ten
HEARINGS: ZC #490 3/10/75
standpoint of privacy and what it would do to the area. I commend
staff, they did hold their hearing a week ago and the public at that
time was notified; I attended that meeting. From the standpoint of
our ordinance we do protect the privacy of the people and this was
so stated and I did call the school district today and was assured
that the -impact:.of these particular developments would not be harmful
•on the existing school. We do (which I said last time is very obvious
have a delicate situation in a blighted area which needs a solution.
So I personally have come to the conclusion because the people have had
a chance to say "yes" or "no" and I have had my chance to talk to them
that I now feel because of the current situation that exists there that
we should go ahead and proceed with MF-15, which would then mean that a
precise plan will have to be submitted at a later date and this will
give these people on the petition and living in the area a further
opportunity to come back again and present their case and to make sure
the privacy protection is there. I feel that -the people have been
represented adequately.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor, I think over a period of years the
City Council and Planning Commission at the
direction of the necessities at hand have ini-
tiated studies throughout the city relative to multi -family zoning..
I am personally of the opinion that there are proper places for multi-
family dwellings, I do not believe in placing them in the center of
R-1 but unfortunately we have many properties throughout the city pre -
zoned to that effect, but the protection now in the requirements has
lessened the impact in that direction. Our General Plan also speaks to
the necessity of multi -family in the community and we will be going
through another change on the General Plan where we are compelled to
supply a certain amount of multi -family structures within our City to
take care of the expanding population. Throughout, the best possible
land uses were undertaken over the period of years that I was on the
.Planning Commission; and some of the seminars I attended dealt directly
with this subject. The most logical place for multi -family would be
in a transitional area such as we have in this instance, primarily
between a freeway and R-1 residential zoned area. This would be a
natural buffer and relate to the ordinance calling for restrictive
designs to protect adjacent structures, and this factor has been of
prime concern to the City Council and the Planning Commission during
the last four years. There hasn't been one public hearing relative to
a multi -family coming off this body that has not given full considera-
tion to the privacy and rights of others in the area. It was not to
our liking that we were faced with this problem; however we are faced
with.resolving it. The impact upon this area is such that I feel the
deteriorating properties facing the freeway would be far more
effective of impact on the surrounding properties than that of multi-
family. As pointed out by the gentleman tonight, there were four
alternate plans submitted for structures on those properties and they
are not precise plans. Again you would have the right of expressing
your concerns if and when those developments might take place. The
City is faced with a problem at this time that could cause future pro-
blems that would be far worse than it is if we did not approve this
tonight. I know it is with mixed emotions that we take action on this
but we are trying to preserve our community and see that it does not
go down to blight.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, I voted "no" on this at the last
• meeting mainly from the standpoint I feel the
City has too many apartments. However, I have
looked at the area and reviewed it and Mr. Miller answered my question
as to what other use could be put on this land; so I am afraid
reluctantly'I would have to go along in support of this change even
though I am not too keen on additional apartments in this city.
- 10 -
CITY COUNCIL
Page [Iavem
3/lO/75
Councilman Chappell: As stated at our previous meeting, this isn't
the usual zone change request, here we are
pooad with a deteriorating section of single
family residences along Garvey, and I don't see anyone coming in with
money offering to repair or fixing them up but I do ooa that if a
person might have the opportunity of buying this land there is oppor-
tunity for multi -family development and we would probab.ly have o
*better chance of hawing it updated and upgraded. As stated by
Councilman Browne, in the past we have always looked after the single
family residents next to a multi -family project. Their privaoy�hos
been safeguarded. With regard to the noiog-- I would like to have a
two story building separating my homg from the freeway because I have
olieotn along this freeway and I am amszad that they are able to live
in the homes because of the noise and mnlgoo heavily insulated they will
not have renters either, but I think we are picking the lesser of two
evils here. This Council hasn't done too much in multi -family zoning
in the past. We have in the last few years continually lowered the
amount of units that can be built on an acre to protect our single
family residents. I voted in favor of this project last time and
continue my vote this -time.-
Motion by Councilman Chappell to approve Zone Change No. 490 ~ City
Initiated; seconded by Councilman Browne and carried. Mayor Shearer
abstained.
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION
EMERGENCY
ADOPTED
NO. 1264
The City Attorney presented:
*AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINAo CALIFORNIA» AM[NO~
I-NG THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS
TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES AND PROVIDING
THE SAME TO BE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE."
otion by Councilman Tice* seconded by Councilman Miller and carriod»
rto waive further reading of said ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Chappell to introduce and adopt said ordinance;
seconded by CqUhcl}man Browne and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Bzowne» Miller» Chappell, Tice
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Shearer
Mayor Shearer: I want to make o statement here because the
implication has been made by at least one
witness that Cal -Trans might benefit by this
action. I have talked to no one» with the exception of one person
the lady sitting in the back - that is my wife. Cal -Trans does not
stand to benefit and by its very obvious absence here ~~ doesn't care.
If you really want my feelings on what the State has done to Ueot
Covina in this matter I don't think my feelings would go in the
direction of my employer. I think the city has taken it on the chin
in this situation. So any implication that there is' mmme oort of
underhanded - or whatever, with mo» it is just the opposite,
PROPOSED GARU[Y AVENUE LOCATION: North side between the east
NAM[ CHANGE and uoetCity Limits.
Proposed name change of Garvey Avenue to
Northnido Drive between the westerly City
im1to and Citrus Street and from Borromoe Street to the easterly City
Limits; and to Eastland Center Drive between Citrus Street and Barranca
Street. (Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing in the Uaat
Covina Tribune on February 27* 1975 received. 315 Notices mailed)
(Public Services Director advised e report has been submitted to Council
and staff is ready to make any additions that Council may uloh°)
CITY COUNCIL Page Twelve
HEARINGS: PROPOSED GARVEY AVENUE NAME CHANGE 3/10/75
Mayor Shearer: Madam City Clerk, do you have the affidavit of
publication and mailing relative to this hearing?
City Clerk: Yes, I do.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
•to receive and file.
Mayor Shearer: Madam City Clerk, have there been any written
protests that you have received?
City Clerk: Not since we published the. hearing notice.
Mayor Shearer: There hpve been some received, I don't know if
was in response to that or prior. How does that
need to be handled, Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, if you have copies of correspondence
with reference to the matter that correspondence
should become a part of the record of this public
hearing. It doesn't really matter whether the correspondence was receiv—
ed before or after the publication of notice of the yearing.
(Mayor Shearer stated he had a copy ofa letter from the owners of
De Pietro Square dated January 16, 1975 signed by Frank De Pietro,
opposing the name change and supportive of the position of changing
the name by adding north and south to Garvey Avenue; another letter
dated January 20, 1975, signed by Mr. Gatman of Gatman and Mitchell,
General Contractors, opposing the Eastland Drive aspect of the
proposal and supportive of the name change providing it is all
Northside Drive.)
•PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST GARVEY AVENUE NAME
CHANGE. (City Attorney advised witnesses need not be sworn in.)
Robert De Pietro I am here with my father and brother; we are owners
2320 Wayne Avenue of De Pietro Square on Garvey Avenue. As the Mayor
Los Angeles stated we did send in a letter voicing our suggest—
ions to the proposed change; however, we did make
clear another position that of adding the names North and South after
Garvey Avenue. I would like to go over the observations made in the
letter. (Briefly stated they went over this matter with their tenants,
who also received notices, they all objected to the change. L. A. County
reserved its opinion, since they are not allowed to take a position on
local matters. Read letter from Kaiser Permanente objecting, stating
Council received a copy of the letter. Explained in further detail
the costinvolved in a name change for the tenants and the inconveniences
caused.)
The February 5th memo includes a result of the
survey of individuals and property owners along Garvey Avenue and we
take exception to one item of this which stated that no property owners
along Garvey Avenue between Sunset and Orange were in opposition. We
are located there and we definitely are prominent property owners and
have voiced our opposition as noted from our letter. I wonder how many
other discrepancies might be contained in that survey. Also, there
will be a confusion at the west boundary of Baldwin Park. Dalewood
.Avenue on the south side of the freeway terminates at the west boundary
f the City of West Covina. Garvey Avenue exists on the north side of
the freeway:, If someone were travelling on Garvey Avenue east in
Baldwin Park they would arrive at the West boundary of West Covina and
find Northside Drive and also find that Garvey Avenue exists on the
south side of the freeway. I don't know if Baldwin Park intends to
change their names or not. That would involve changes on both sides of
the freeway for them.
12 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirteen
HEARINGS: PROPOSED.GARVEY AVENUE NAME CHARGE 3/10/75
-I have had occasion over the years to be in
West Covina quite a few times during construction work and I have
been asked many times by motorists questions regarding directions and
most of the people ask how to get on the other side of the freeway.
Very few times do they ask for say 1540 when they are on our odd side,
the north side of the freeway. Personnel at Kaiser Permanente will
•advise that this is not a problem with them. Further* people are
usually educated to the fact that.the north side of the road is the odd
number and the south side of the road is the even number.
In a study of the name change from 1963 to now,
in several of the proposals we found through the history of the
Council meetings, etc., one proposal is to change the name of Garvey
Avenue on the south side of the freeway to Holt Avenue or some other
name; others have suggested changing it on the north side as it is
being proposed now, and others have suggested changing it on both sides,
in fairness to everyone involved. Another proposal, which we support,
would be to add north and south, which would make it West Garvey Avenue
north or East Garvey Avenue south. This has been done before in other
areas, one in particular is Santa Monica. (Explained) A change such
as this we feel would minimize the cost and -there would be less confusion
in the fact that people all of a sudden would have no problem finding an
address, where they were used to going to West Garvey they would not have
to find a new address on Northside Drive. Businesses could use it much
like a zip code and add it on to their address or not, and in time I
think they would find that if it does alleviate problems they would use
it just like our zip code now and use it more and more often. Thank you.
George Strachan Mr. Mayor and Council, this particular problem has
Manager been going on now for many years. It was going
Chamber of Commerce on when I arrived on the scene, 6 years ago audit
is still a problem. The Chamber is not attempting
to hurt anyone, they are trying to solve the problem that has plagued
the business people as well as the residential community.. There have
been several attempts, as Mr. De Pietro just pointed out, to make
changes of various sorts. After several requests to try and do
something to resolve the problem, a committee did give a lot of atten—
tion to this and tried to come up with answers they thought would be
acceptable to people on both sides of the freeway. At one time Garvey
Avenue was a very important street and name and served an important
purpose. It was the main street in West Covina. With the advent of
the freeway this provided the problem we are now faced with and
instead of being the primary street of West Covina it became a rather
disjointed street on both sides of the freeway, going away and stopping,
which created problems. We continued at the Chamber to get many
requests. Quite often, as Mr. De Pietro said, they wouldn't ask for a
number but they would ask for De Pietro Square, or the County Assessor's
office. They are looking for a place more than an address but it has
provided problems. So the Committee after reviewing it carefully —
there were people serving on the Committee from both sides of the
freeway all the way from the Stan Mar Hotel on the west end of the city
to Eastland on the east end of the city and they felt the questionnairre
we sent out dated January 11, 1975, indicated they tried to get it down
to three changes. Eastland Drive and Northside Drive. (Explained) The
results of the survey indicated the recommendations that we submitted
to City Council for your consideration.
• One thing I would like to point out which has
been brought up twice now and that was the reason for Eastland Drive.
It was the feeling on the Committee and they were unanimous in this,
that Garvey Avenue does not run on the north side of the freeway
actually between Citrus and Barranca, that is not a dedicated street
through there, you wander through a parking lot. So it was felt we
— 13 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Fourteen
HEARINGS: PROPOSED GARVEY-AVENUE NAME CHANGE 3/10/75
keep the name of Garvey for all dedicated streets and in that instance
the only place the name would appear would be at the entrance to
Eastland and we thought that would better serve the public and lessen
the confusion. This is basically the reasons for the Chambers'
initiating this action. We felt it would be helpful and solve a
rather knotty problem. We would encourage you to give very serious
•consideration to this request.
Dennis De Pietro I would just like to comment on the remarks of
the gentleman from the Chamber of Commerce. The
argument it is still a problem. We received the
history of the Garvey Avenue name change from 1963 to 1975 and it seems
if it were that large of a problem it wouldn't continue 12 years without
a solution. It has been our experience that it isn't a problem to our
tenants. Kaiser Permanente along has a great many people daily seeking
their service. For an organization like that not to have any problems
would indicate the general make up of people are finding the streets
to the north or south of the freeway. Also the request that the Chamber
of Commerce find some alleviation wbuld.:'.be contradicted by this. Again
we have a number of tenants and we have never had this problem occur.
I can only add that all of our tenants. were.very
much against the name change. It would be a great expense and cause
confusion. It would be a simple thing to add north and south to the
signs where required and nothing more would be necessary. Thank you.
Andy Bagis We ask you at this time to grant this name change
Manager so we may better serve the people coming into
Eastland Shopping West Covina andthe merchants at Eastland Shopping
Center Center. If you can we might put an end to the
confusion that now exists. Thank you.
• Mr. Sorich I am a new business owner in West Covina, and
200 North Grand since I am new in the area of West Covina when
we applied for a business license we were not
told of any such change. So in the last month I have entailed in my
business quite a -bit of printing which is full color, it has cost me
approximately $3,000 and that is only for approximately 6 months.
So in this estimated cost for changing addresses of residents and
owners of $2750 - is that for a total figure or just one? I myself
in 6 months would overdo that. I have heard a lot of pros and cons
about the name not sounding good and things like this. Then I think
there are a lot of people that should change their names because
Garvey to me is just the name of another street. If people can't
locate themselves on any street whether it is north or south of the
freeway they are having a problem because as stated one side is even
and the other add. My business used to be located in the City of
Industry on Puente Avenue. I had many people come up on the same
street and they didn't know where they were, all.,they had to do was
look at the addresses and if they can't tell that - - Other than
that we have had many people already within the last month come to
our place from all over Los,Angeles, because we do business all over
the county, and they have not had too much of a problem with finding
our place even due to the fact that right there we are going through
construction at Pacific Avenue. So as far as people having a hard
time finding a place I think if they are looking for a place they
will find it.
• I don't know about the other businesses in the
area I only know a few people and what I have found is.that no one
is in favor of it. It is an old street and most people are quite
satisfied with the present name. I am opposed to the change. My
business address is 1629, on the north side of Garvey.
- 14 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Fifteen
HEARINGS: PROPOSED GARVEY AVENUE NAME CHANGE 3/10/75
Doug Holina We have the large display on the north side of
Area Manager the San Bernardino Freeway. We employ 8 pools
Anthony Pools there and have been there since 1966. The
display is worth in the area of a quarter million
dollars. I think the situation that would hurt us would be the cost
involved in changing the advertising, letterhea-d, etc. 'We do around
$300,000.worth of advertising per year with the name of Garvey Avenue on
ON. Now I can empathize with your problem - we have thought about it a
lot in the last few weeks and I could not come up with a solution other
than the one mentioned by the gentleman who spoke first, that is to
make it north and south addresses. People do not find our address
because our display sign is so large they look for the sign. But because
of the situation involved in the changing of the advertising and the
cost involved, my general manager has instructed me to oppose this change.
As far as the Eastland Center change this would be fine. We have
opposed this change many times and I wonder how many more years we will
be involved without solving the problem, but if it does come to that we
will work to make the change but it does involve an appreciable invest-
ment to change over. We have people from allover the world come to our
display and they do find it by the sign. They do not look for north or
south. We oppose this.
Paul Gordon I am very much in favor of the Eastland Center
2445 East Garvey Drive part of it and as far -,as the Northside Drive
I am definitely opposed to it. I own a 10 unit
apartment building and all the tenants are very
up in arms against it. They are more or less low income families and
they just don't want to be bothered with the hassle of changing
personal stationery, etc.
Knight Wine We have a small beauty shop at 1629 West Garvey
and I want to go on record as being against
changing the name. It will cost 'me money and
also cause a lot of confusion in getting any new business and also
to my present customers. Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION.
(The Mayor asked the City Attorney if the Council would decide to enter-
tain some name change other than Northside Drive/Eastland Center Drive
would that require another hearing - is Council limited in what it
considers this evening or is it pretty broad?)
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the City Council is not limited.
The public hearing in this situation is held
pursuant to a long established policy of the
Council rather than any requirement that exists in law or ordinance.
In order to obtain a fair cross section of the people that would be
most affected City Council does give notice of a proposed name change
and an opportunity such as this in which the affected businesses and
individuals may be heard, but you are not limited to the names that
have been advertised.
(Council discussed costs involved; pointed out the Post Office would
probably go along with the using the old stationery until exhausted;
Councilman Chappell felt the suggestion by De Pietro of using north:,and
•csouth after Garvey Avenue held a lot of merit; Council agreed on the
hange to Eastland Center Drive and discussed in further detail the
change to Garvey Avenue north and Garvey Avenue south. Council asked
staff if they had considered this and if there is any overriding
thing that Council may not be aware of that would cause them to
recommend against this? Mr. Lippit, City Engineer, stated the
Committee discussed many names, and north and south Garvey Avenue they
felt did not sound right so was only discussed slightly but he didn't
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Sixteen
HEARINGS: PROPOSED GARVEY=AVENUE NAME CHANGE 3/10/75
think staff would. object, and from an engineering standpoint he did
not see a problem. Mr. Strachan of the Chamber of Commerce also stated
he felt there would be no problem at all and thought it was a pretty
good solution to the problem.)
Motion by Councilman Chappell to change the name of Garvey Avenue on the
Wwrthsido_.;of,!the freeway to Garvey Avenue North and on the south side of
he freeway to Garvey Avenue South, with the exception of the street
running in front of Eastland Shopping Center changed to Eastland Center
Drive; seconded by Councilman Browne and carried.
THE MAYOR CALLED FOR A RECESS OF THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 9:10 P.M.
COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:35 P.M.
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOP- LOCATION: Southeast corner of Amar Road
MENT NO. 1, DP #8, and Shadow Oak Drive.
TT #31633 - BUTLER HOUSING/ REQUEST: Approval for a Development Plan
UMARK, INC. for 154 single family lots which includes
a Tentative Tract of 89 lots within the
Woodside Village Planned Community Development Zone on a 45*/- acre par-
cel of land; and request -.for a waiver of the front yard setback
requirement for 20 units in Tentative Tract No. 31633. Refer to.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2574. Appealed by Applicant on
February 24, 1975. (Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing
in the West Covina Tribune on February 27, 1975 received. 34 Notices
Mailed.) A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Report was
approved and accepted by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Director stated this matter was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a Public Hearing last month, at which time the hearing
was advertised to have a waiver of an 8' setback on the 10 lots instead
•of a 22' setback. The Commission considered the request; the applicant
requested 20 and the City Attorney ruled the additional un1s would be
ruled by the additional advertising.. After considering the situation,
the parking problems that could occur and in an effort to design out
any parking problems later after the fact, the Commission approved
TT 31633 and DP #8 subject to all the design standards and requirements
of the PCD #1. As amended theJentative Tract and Development Plan are
shown on the display board. ;Explained the situation as it relates to
cars, parking, etc. Basic concerns of the Commission are outlined
adequately in the copies of the minutes and staff reports which have
been included in the Council's packets. Basic concern is with the 8'
setback creating possibly serious parking problems even with automatic
garage door openers, etc., because there is no guarantee that they would
be used, consequently the Planning Commission approved the PCD Plan sub-
ject to all the standards of the PCD and this matter has been appealed by
the applicant for Council consideration. Mayor Shearer asked if that
were the only requirement the applicant was appealing and Mr. Miller
answered "yes", and the City Attorney concurred.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF
PCD-1 DP #89 TT #31633.
IN FAVOR
Dick Hunsaker (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
2301 Campus Drive I am representing Mr. Merrill Butler,
•Irvine the applicant, who unfortunately through
some misunderstanding as to date had a
previous engagement and was unable to,break it. I attending the
Planning Commission hearing along with Mr. Butler. I prepared some
notes which we felt summarized our position on setbacks and came up
with some graphic pictures in order to help you come to a decision.
- 16 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Sevente.e.n
HEARINGS: PCD-1, DEP8, TT 31633 3/10/75-
It originally had been our plan to give you thisinfdrmation one week
in advance of the meeting tonight but through Mr. Miller's office
through the City Attorney it was ruled this would be information in.,
addition to what the Planning Commission had so therefore we were
requested to wait until tonight to present this information. It will
be quite apparent when y.ou.read through this why I requested that this
information be given to you one week in advance.(Presented to Council)
•As stated by Mr. Miller we are in agreement with all the conditions of
the Tentative Plan and PCD #8. It is our feeling that reduced setbacks
to garages when properly used can be very beneficial to any planned
community. We feel -in Woodside Village, which has a future zoning, it
allows Varidus:,building`types and allows you to come up with a
community which has many more benefits than if you went through and
gave it a straight zoning, such as R-1, 7200 or R-1, 5000. You get a
variation of architectural types and buildings.
I do believe, as illustrated in our pictures in
the booklet, that many cities have done this and that a varying in
setback by isolated conditions as we requested here, in two cul-de-sacs
that a shortened setback can be beneficial to the development and use
of land in the most economical way. We did not request the reduced
setback in the loop road that goes through our development because we
felt it would not be in good planning practice and that is why we
limited it to the cul-de-sacs only. They are very low volume streets.
Yes, you might be taking a chance in the parking problems but we feel
there are benefits that can be gained and recommend that you grant us
this opportunity. (Briefly went through the information contained in
the booklet presented to Council.)
I would like you to entertain the thought if you
find it necessary, if you would like to hold your decision over so you
might be able to go out and view any of these developments personally
Wwe would certainly be open to continuing the matter for a two week
eriod. Of course that would be up to you. I am open for any questions.
Thank you.
HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
(Individual Councilmen asked questions which were answered; Councilman
Browne pointed out that one of the things lacking in development
requirements is the provision for recreational vehicles and it is
becoming more or a problem as time goes on; in this instance the
applicant asking for a variance on the setback this would place the
homeowner in the situation if he had a recreational vehicle of having
to park it on the street - 8' would not accommodate an automobile
legally..)
Councilman Browne: In going through Woodside Village and checking
out the existing developments you would find
out that about 60% of the people have their
garages so full of surplus items that they can't even get one car in
the garage. I think we are just creating an enforcement problem for the
Police Department. I think the safety factor has been well explained.
I think we are going to have to require developers to provide additional
parking areas for recreational vehicles and these driveways as planned
by the applicant certainly would not accommodate. I am against a
variance of this type because we are just compounding a situation that
we have in the City. And I don't see where we should even consider
fretting a precedence in this instance.
(Councilman Chappell said in the original development of the Bren pro-
ject this concept was mentioned by them and in a tour he came back in
opposition to that shortened area. Many homes in the city have four
cars so I don't see how we can in good conscience allow this type of
variance to be passed. Council agreed.)
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS: PCD-1. DEP #8. TT 31633
Page `.Zighteen:
3/10/75
Motion by Councilman Browne to deny the appeal in the case of the
PCD NO. 10 DP NO. B; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
Motion by Councilman .Tice to approve Tentative Tract No. 31633; seconded
by Councilman Browne and carried.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. B LOCATIONS: AREA I: Bounded on the north
•EITY INITIATED east by Merced Avenue, on the southeast
by Sunset Avenue, on the northwest by
Trojan Way, and on the southwest by the
southerly line of Lots B through 14,
Tract No. 23971.
REQUEST: Approval for a change of land Use designation from "Office"
to "Low -Medium" and "Medium Density Residential" and "Office".
AREA II: Bounded on the northwest by
Orange Avenue, on the south by Walnut
Creek Channel, and on the northeast by the
northerly line of Lots 32 through 44, Tract
No. 15063.
REQUEST: Approval of a Change of Land Use designation from "Medium"
Density Residential and "Parks" to -"Low Medium" Density Residential.
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2577. (Proof of
Publication of Notice of Public Hearing in the West Covina Tribune on
February 27, 1975 received. No mailed notices)
Mr. Miller: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, in the middle
Planning Director of 1974 the City Council was given a request to
purchase some property located on Orange Avenue
north of Merced, which was shown as a potential
park addition. After review by the Recreation and Parks Commission it
was determined that this land was not needed for park expansion, it
Would be very difficult to use, the matter was then referred to the
Planning Commission by City Council for the appropriate change in the
General Plan to permit the use of the land pursuant to State Law. In
addition the Planning Commission received a request to consider a
General Plan Amendment in the vicinity of the south side of Merced,
west side of Sunset, a consideration to change some office professional
classification to multi -family classification. Staff has reviewed the
situation, prepared the appropriate documents, including the EIR and
submitted to the Commission. On February 5 they conducted a public
hearing and in their Resolution 2577 recommended approval of General
Plan amendment 1975-2.
. Basically what this does is the property on
Orange Avenue is proposed to be changed from park, and an area
allowing up to 25 units per acre to allow 4.4 and 14.9 to the acre.
That whole tract would then be in conformance with what is there now
and permit the development of the property to a use that would be
compatible with that area.
The second area within the General Plan Amend-
ment on the west side of Sunset, south of Pierced, the lower two-thirds
would be changed to allow up to 25 units per acre (MF-20) and the re-
maining one-third around the service station would remain in 0-P.
Given the demand for office uses in this area, medical facilities, and
with the construction of Roos -Loos and the efforts on the part of the
City through its Redevelopment Agency as well as city staff to
ncourage office development in the downtown area and more centralize
the location for new offices the staff and the Planning Commission
concurred with the General Plan Amendment. This recommendation is
now referred to Council for your consideration.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 8 - CITY INITIATED. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY
FOR OR AGAINST PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
- .18 -
CITY COUNCIL Pa a Nineteen
PUB. HEAR: GP AMENDMENT NO. 1975-2 3�10/75
Councilman Chappell voiced his objection to voting
further 25 units to the acre zoning at this time, stating each time we
do we have problems with apartments and 25 to the acre is more than he
is willing to vote for. Councilmen Tice and Miller agreed;
Councilman Chappell said in regard to Area II he didn't find too much
fault with that; Councilmen Tice and Miller agreed. Councilman Browne
•agreed with the comments made by Councilman Chappell but asked for
further elaboration on the rationale behind the change for Area I
relative to the existing zoning on it, the impact of density on the
area.
Mr. Miller: The zoning in Area I right now, the lower third
is currently zoned R-A. The middle area is zoned
MF-15 and the upper third currently zoned 0-P.
Basically what you are changing is the MF-15 area, the R-A area to permit
density up to 25 units to the acre (MF-20). In discussing this with the
City Attorney on the basis of intensity of use, it was our understanding
with him that if the applicant had made a request for MF-15 or stayed
within that classification no -more than 14.9 units to the acre, that
the intensity of use for that is almost identical to the intensity of
use of 0-P for this particular property. However, the applicant who
made the request for the change from the General Plan requested the
higher classification, staff gave it consideration, given the vacancy
situation in the area and the goals for the city as far as dispersal
of offices and the attempt to get office space within the CBD as your
primary goal, we felt the classification of 25 units to the acre would
be compatible and could be compatible with the adjacent land uses, to
the south that has a row of single family homes that could be well
protected with the standards set, if that is what they apply for.
This does not mean they have to apply for MF-20'but would give them
the right to and the Council does not necessarily have to accept.
.Secondly, the property to the west is the high school and again the
compatibility question can be provided for, therefore staff recommended
to the Planning Commission and they concurred with allowing 25 units
to the acre.
(Councilman Chappell pointed out that his report stated this is
"City Initiated" and not somebody else initiating. Mr. Miller said
it was city initiated primarily because of the limitation of three
General Plan Amendments in a year, and in an effort to combine
factors Staff covered as much ground as possible in the Amendment.
Explained the City Initiated one is for Area II and AreaA,_,wa§`upon the
request of the property owner. While City Initiated the only one
the city is mandatorily required to make a change one way or the other
unless wanting to purchase the property is Area II. )
(Councilman Chappell stated it wasn't too long ago that Council zoned
thisarea to what it is now and now we are being asked to increase the
density, and he wasn't convinced that the additional density is
needed along there.)
Mayor Shearer: I will add my voice to those that have already
stated.their feelings and spoken in opposition
to Area I. Even though the matter.of zoning is
not before us this evening if we vote to change the General Plan
designation I think we are committed by law if an applicant comes in
and wants to put in the 12 acres he could get in 300* apartments if he
0-ook advantage of the bonus. I am not sure that any member of this
Council, myself included, would want to go that route. In the staff
report it uses statistics about the large number of vacant offices in
that area, the conclusion being that therefore we do not need any more
offices. I think we could run the same type of survey on apartments
in the city and come -to the same conclusion. I am in opposition to
Area I and in support of Area II change. This area is already develop-
- 19-
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEAR: GP AMENDMENT NO. 1975-2
Page •Twent.y
3/10/75
ed with the exception of the 2.8 acres.
Motion by Councilman Chappell to leave Area I as it is and approve the
recommendation on Area II.
Mayor Shearer: Mr. Wakefield, a question with regard to Area I.
If this motion passes then Area I stays as it is
on the General Plan,the area which is Office
Professional even though it is presently zoned Office/MF-15 and R—A —
the whole area could it go apartments with the present zoning, the
middle section that is presently zoned MF-15?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the City has the obligation to bring
its specific zoning pattern into conformity with
the General Plan; however, until that is done we
really have no effective control. If the owner of the property which
is now zoned for low to medium density residential comes in and applies
for approval of a precise plan we would have to approve.
Mayor Shearer: Would it require a General Plan Amendment since
it is shown on the General Plan definitely to be
office?
Mr. Wakefield: It is already zoned for that particular use so it
would not require an amendment to the zoning
ordinance, but the obligation of the city is to
bring its precise zoning into conformity with the General Plan, so
if the zoning is correct we should change the General Plan.
Mayor Shearer: The point I am getting at, I am wondering if we
are completely rejecting... we still have a
conflict even if we pass the motion as intro=
•duced we still have a difference or variance between the General Plan
and our zoning which presents problems. I wonder if Council can give
some input as to how they would like staff or the Commission to pro—
ceed in this matter to resolve the conflict rather than just repeating
this and hoping they will get, it right next time.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Motion by Councilman Chappell to approve the Amendment to the General
Plan as it applies to Area II; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, it seems to me
that if the City Council is persuaded that the
General Plan should not be changed to reflect
in effect the existing zoning on the property than the Planning
Commission should be requested to study the zoning that is on the
property and if.appropriate initiate proceedings for a change of zone.
Mayor Shearer: Mr. Miller, you said we are limited to three
changes per year?
Mr. Wakefield: Three changes to the General Plan and the
reason for that is illustrated by the problems
before you tonight. If you are willing to change
the General Plan then it indicates the zoning in existence on the
•property at present is inappropriate. If the objective really is to
make your precise zoning plan conform to the General Plan then you
shouldn't be in the position of where you resolve the conflict by
changing the General Plan each time that the matter comes up instead
of actually cha-nging the zone to conform to the General Plan.
— 20. —
CITY COUNCIL Page 1werit,y-ones
PUB. HEAR: GP AMENDMENT NO. 1975-2 3110175
Mayor Shearer: Can Area I be referred back to the Planning
Commission perhaps with some input from Council
as to our thinking and still be included as the
one change and not counted as two changes?
Mr. Wakefield:
•
General Plan until
Mayor Shearer:
Yes, Mr. Mayor, it could be referred back. It
would mean simply that we would hold up the
adoption of the formal resolution changing the
there was some feedback from the Planning Commission.
at the southern half
low to medium, which
half on the corner -
coming back with the
Mr. Miller:
classification,
City Council to
choose.
Without unduly committing myself until further
input if the Planning Commission and staff would
care to reconsider it, be receptive to looking
that is presently zoned R-A and MF-15 in light of
would -in--,-.effect mean MF-15, and leave the northerly
office, that is a possible compromise; or even
whole thing medium/low.
Mr. Mayor, if I may, and the City Attorney can
correct me if I am wrong, the Planning Commission
has made recommendation for the medium density
however I don't believe that negates the option o.f the
approve the low/medium classification now, if they so
Mayor Shearer: Personally I would prefer to see further input
from the Planning Commission in that regard.
(Council agreed)
Councilman Browne:. Mr. Mayor a question - inasmuch as we are going
through the updating of the General Plan through
various elements and you say we are only allowed
0hree updates will this affect this that we are mandated by the State
to do?
Mr. Miller: Nov it would not for the reason the update we
are contemplating as far as land use would not
be completed until January 1, 1976, and hope-
fully we would be able to handle one complete revision at the
beginning of 1976 and not handle any further revisions in 1976. This
year I.don't see any problem. (Mr. Miller asked to explain a bit'
further) If the City Council adopted a motion to conform to the
existing zoning and reading into that meaning that the area shown
0-P would be shown as 0-P on the General Plan and the area shown on
zoning as MF-15 and.R-A would go to multi -family whether it be MF-15
or 25, that could be done tonight and in effect it would require the
applicant to come in with a precise plan and zone change to change the
R-A to MF-15, but it would give him permission to do so. But under the
General Plan now he does not -have that permission. That is why I say
it is within the prevue of .the Council now to adopt the General Plan
Amendment with 14.9 units to the acre maximum for the lower two-
thirds which is MF-15/R-A now and 0-P for the upper third which is
0-P now.
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Browne.
�ayor Shearer: Keep it in mind that low density does allow 15
units per acre which basically are two story
apartment buildings.
Councilman Browne: But they have that right now at this time to
come in if they desire with a precise plan for
development - so we are not changing anything.
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING: GP AMENDMENT NO. 1975-2
Page Twenty—two,'
3/10/75
(Mr. Wakefield agreed with the Mayor that this would avoid the conflict.;
Mr. Miller asked if he had any strong reaction to this and he said "no, -
I think it is consistent with the ideas staff was attempting to put for—
ward.)
Mayor Shearer: We now have a motion regarding Area I to amend
• the General Plan to conform to the existing zoning
on the property affected.
Motion carried.
(Councilman Chappell requested a change in the procedure of the Agenda
due to the fact that there were a number of Veterans' in the audience
with regard to the Veterans' Preference. Council agreed to take that
item next) (City Attorney's agenda — Item E-1)
VETERANS' PREFERENCE Mayor Shearer: I would like to review what
the proposal from the Personnel
Board is. I will read from the
staff report: "It is the recommendation of the Personnel Board that the
City Council amend th.e City's current ordinance regarding veteran's pre—
ference by limiting the period of time following military discharge during
which the preference would be offered to five years." The 5 years,
according to the new ordinance, would be measured from the time of honor—
able discharge from any branch of the service. There is no provision for
limiting it to service during a declared war or declared emergency.
The present veteran's preference has no such limitation of time. Both
the present and proposed ordinance limit the giving of points to open
examination only.
Chairman I represent about a million and three —
•Southern Region of the quarter veterans from Bakersfield south
Veterans Employment Comm. to the ocean and Arizona. I hope you will
give this serious consideration. This has
been brought up in many cities and counties throughout the state and
country. The intent of the veteran's preference provision was clearly
enunciated.by the Supreme Court in 1948 and I will read: "It was felt
the problems of returning veterans was particularly acute and merited
special consideration. Their mode of employment and mode of life had
been seriously disrupted by their service in the armed forces and it
was thought they could not be expected to resume their regular activi—
ties without re—employment and rehabilitation aids. President
Roosevelt commented just prior to his death "the problems of readjust—
ment will be difficult for all and very difficult for those who have
spent months and even years in the battlefields all over the world.
Surely a grateful nation will want to express its attitude in deeds as
well as in words."
Gentlemen, in your capacity as councilmen
you have a awesome power and responsibility that goes with that power.
I would as you to consider the many ramifications involved in this. It
may not sound like too much to cut it down to 5 years but it does.
I wrote you assuming your charter was cutting down to 5 years, I also
assumed the top three go on the register and one of the top three is
hired, so therefore you are not bound to hire a veteran. We can agree,
most of our organizations have, that yes they should just receive a
preference for the initial employment and then we do not expect it to
e used as a crutch from there on in. They have to get their promo —
ions on their own. The main thing this is unfair to'the young
veteran. So many places, so I have been told, the reason for doing this
is for them. Actually you are taking away a right from the Vietnam
veterans that we had. When we came out of World War II there was no
limitation on the time we had. Now if you limit it to 5 years you are
taking it away from them. There are very few of us old timers coming
— 22' —
CITY COUNCIL
VETERAN'S PREFERENCE
Page Twenty4t1iree
3/10/75
in and asking for a job at the city. It is mostly the young fellow
going to school part-time and working part-time. I know I have right
now two going to law school and working part-time and raising families.
They cannot finish in five years. Think about the young fellow drafted
right out of high school, he never had a job, went directly into
service, when he came back he was confused and went into a anti -vet
society and kind of jumped around from job to job. I am sure some of
•you did the same thing when you were 19/20 years old - it took you
awhile before you settled down. Why put the limitation of five years,
maybe he will get squared away in that five year period.
Another consideration is the retired man. .,Many
people think because he put 20 years in service he is getting $1,000 a
month pension, he doesn't need a job. He does and he is the type of
man that you probably need in your community. Usually you will find a
man that has been that time in service is a family man, well adjusted
and this is the type you want in your community, but if he spent twenty
years as a chief torpedo man there aren't too many openings for a
torpedo man in civilian employment. So he is going to need all the
help pecan get to get another job if he has a family he can't support
the family on the pension he has. And how about that young fellow
with a broken body or broken mind that has spent years in the.h�ospital_..
before he can come out and seek employment? Doesn't every governmental
entity owe every consideration for the man who fought for that very
same government? California has the largest veteran population in the
country. 88% of the population of the State lives in areas where they
do have veteran's preference just the same as you do here and I would
hate to see you Wiggle your way out of it. I would like to express my
appreciation to allow me to speak to you tonight. Thank you.
John Garris
1314 E. Puente
Covina
•Commander, W.C.
American Legion
You have all received a copy of the letter
Street I sent to you - I am not going to repeat
Post
read the letter and
American Legion with
what I said. I will say the L. A. Times
790 quoted me as it.being an angry letter; it
was not intended to be an angry letter but
just a letter of facts and I hope you
agreed that is What it was. We agree in the
the Veterans' of Foreign Wars stand.
I have one more item that I would like to
bring to your attention which I doubt very.much that many people stop
and think about and you might be surprised at what your action here
might do for the national security of our great nation. I happen to
be a member of the State National Security Commission and a Vice -
Chairman, and this Commission is designed to insure that our govern-
ment has proper weapons, planes and ships to assure that our armed
forces in this country are second to none. This is to prevent an
attack by foreign power or to defend in case of attack, but our
Commission studied this and we feel we are number one in this
category, but we do.have one more.thing - a big threat to our national
security, and that is an internal threat within.th's'country.•,~
First of all we just went through the
amnesty program with President Ford and this certainly left a sour
taste with most veterans that served in the armed forces. Just
recently in the paper the news media quoted our Senior Senator,
Senator Cranston saying that he Would like to take the dishonorable
discharges, the bad conduct discharges, the undesirable discharges,
WWEf the Vietnam veterans who got into trouble because we put them int.o
E war and make them nice guys by patting them on the wrists. Th.i.s is
not fair to the thousands of young men who served in Vietnam and came
back with honorable discharges. I bring this to your attention because
now the City of West Covina is doing one more thing and that is
attempting to take a right away from our veterans, and this is what is
- 23 -
^^
. CITY COUNCIL Page Tuehty
VETERAN'S3/10/75 -
hurting and will hurt our national security. Even though we have the
planes, ships, oto°* to defend ourselves it still takes one thing to
do it and that is manpower. I ask you to think about this. What is
the young person of today and tomorrow going to think about taking op
arms to defend his country when he sgos,� he doesn't have to because he
can be granted amnesty and patted on the back by saying we are sorry
ue sent you thoro» or if he does come back endthe citizens of this
country feel okay you served, forget it, you don«t deserve what your
grandfather or father got. So I ask you tonight to consider this one
little thought - the youth of our country and how they must feel about
defending,00r coohhry in the future and if you do make your decision,
and now I want to be a little sentimental and ask you to do what I
asked President Ford to do when I wired him about amnesty, he ignored
me and I hope you won't. I asked the President at that time when he
made his decision on amnesty to please look across the Potomac and
remember those in Arlington and think what they mould think about taking
the rights away from veterans. Thank you.
Mayor Shearer: We will now.have Council discussion and I will take
the prerogative of the Mayor, normally he speaks
lastr but I am th�e nno-that brought it op to -begin
with and to a certain extent nou,I wish I hadn't. With all due-rospect'
to the witnesses I am personally somewhat offended by the attempt to tie
this in with amnesty, dishonorable discharge and anything of that nature.
Perhaps e politician shouldn't may that he is offended by'i-,the statements
of his constituents.
I am a veteran, my father was a veteran, mounded
at Argonne. Veteran's preference is not a matter of right to a
veteran. I take it from some of the testimony here this evening that
it was emotional and I think we have a right to be emotional when we
talk about those who fought for our country and in some cases gave up
0thoir life. I have tremendous respect for that. I get the feeling
that the emphasis is being placed on the person who fought and yet
veteran's preference is given across the board. Our ordinance is not
limited awgn in its present form to war veterans, which it was at one
time in the State of California limited to. I notice also'that some
cities in our immediate locality have no veteran's preference uhatever*
so it in not really o matter of right. '
The only reason I brought it up was that we had
a situation in the city where thore,uao an open examination, it was
for o higher level 'ob» not the type of job that you would oog e
torpedo man coming out from oarnlcm applying for or those without
experience. It was an open oxamination» similar to an exam that
might be given for e department head in our city. There were applica-
tions from veterans of many yoors» obvious there was the veteran's
preference given and this raised a question in my mind. One of the
uitng000m pointed out the retired aituatlon ~ sure the torpedo mon
there isn't much call for hlmw but I have also seen a man that was
discharged, in fact I had one working for me, he was a retired full
colonel in the U.S. Air Force and served admirably in World War II,
but he had broad administrative experience in the air force. He came
baukt retired and took o civil service oxaminationand on the basis
of his broad experience and veteran's preference he received o pretty
high grade, much higher than anyone else, which I am not begrudging
him. I am 'omt pointing out some of the things that entered my mid
Whom I asked that a study be made. I received some pretty nasty
ail - not yours - in fact I received'one postcard that said I was
an old rich man. Obviously I am not old and my bank book indicates
I am not rich.
I am not stating what my position now is but I
wanted to clarify the fact that this was in no way an unpatriotic move
CITY.COUNCIL Page Twenty=,five
VETERAN'S PREFERENCE 3/10/75
on my part. If I was called on to serve today I would do it if they
would have an old rich man. So please don't interpret what we are
discussing here this evening. I have some strong feelings about
amnesty and about a dishonorable discharge, perhaps not as strong as
yours because I served~_'in a different era, but I think you and I would
both vote the same if we were asked to vote on that particular issue.
Councilman Biller: Br. Mayor, I want to tackle this as it is
recommended to us, that it is a limitation of
5 years. With the short life span that I have had under the Veterans'
Program at Citrus College, over 21000 now, we found that a pretty good
percentage of our veterans coming back don't necessarily, come back with
a lot of straight ideals or goals in mind, they come back wondering
which direction to go. So in dealing with these people you find that
maybe they will work part-time and go to school part-time, maybe they
work for awhile and then come back to school and float around between
schools. So I definitely will be opposed to the 5 year limit and also
I am opposed to'any consideration of a limitation number, simply from
the standpoint when you deal with a veteran he may be disabled and
need a longer time to get back ibto society.. He is always playing
catch up and it doesn't mean simply because he goes to school that
when he gets out of school he is going to find a job, because of our
present job market being so tight this puts him in a bad position.
Councilman Chappell: When this was brought up I was rather sorry to
have,had it brought up but not knowing the
circumstances behind it I waited to see the
reasoning behind it. I see nothing wrong in looking over our
ordinances and reviewing them from time to time and updating and up-
grading if necessary. In this instance I feel it is not necessary to
change it. I didn't feel it the evening you brought it up but I wanted
to find out if there were good reasons to make this change. I don't
Whave statistics on how many people we have hired in the last five years
hat have taken advantage of the 5 points but I rather feel it wouldn't
be too sizable. A veteran is a veteran no matter how long he has been
out of service and if he spends 3 or,`:4 years in service I find no
fault in allowing 5 points.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor., going back through some of the
history that gendered this I see in 1967 I
seconded the motion to put in the 5 point
veteran's preference when I was on the Personnel Board, and I find
my feeling is the same as then. It was valid at that time and still
is.
Mayor Shearer: The fact that West Covina only adopted the
veteran's preference in 1967 would indicate
that most of the
World War II ans were
not in fact affected. The item of disabledveteransvwasrmentioned
and I think that makes much more sense to have even a higher score
for disabled veterans than an able bodied veteran such�,as myself
who during the time of his service gained experience in engineering
which was applicable when I came out with no injury. Our ordinance
doesn't provide that, but maybe we ought to let the thing rest.
May we have a motion.
Councilman Chappell moved to retain the ordinance on Veteran's Prefer-
ence as it is presently written; seconded by Councilman Tice and
�rried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice
NOES: Shearer (for reasons previously stated)
ABSENT: None
2 5'-
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS — Continued
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AMEND—
MENT TO 1974/75 WEED AND
RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM
PROTEST HEARING
•
Mayor Shearer:
City Clerk:
Page Twenty—six
3/10/75
LOCATION: Various throughout the City.
Set for hearing on this date for protests
and/or objections from property owners.
and/or other interested parties by
Resolution No. 5019 adopted February 24/75.
(Council reviewed Street Superintendent's
report.)
Madam City Clerk, do you have the Affidavit of
Mailing?
Yes, I do.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to receive and file.
Mayor Shearer: Madam City Clerk,.doyou have any written protests
or objections?
City Clerk: No, Mr. Mayor, but we have had a lot of returns
from people that have moved and we have tried
to send them on again.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST
HEARING CLOSED.
Motion by Councilman Chappell to authorize City Engineer to proceed with
abatement of weeds and rubbish on those properties described in
Resolution of Intention No. 5019; seconded by Councilman Browne and
carried.
CITY ATTORNEY
• ORDINANCE No..1265 The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION and. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ADOPTED WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2101
(Urgency) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE ANNUAL ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL."
Motian by Councilman Chappell to waive full reading of said Ordinance.
Seconded by Councilman Browne and carried.
Mayor Shearer: Mr. Wakefield, can this be made an urgency
ordinance to be effective immediately with the
vote of 4 —.I don't want to serve until the end
of April.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, I think there is no Iproblem. The
existing section of the orginance and the section
as proposed to be amended simply provides that the
Mayor shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and if the time
is now to reorganize then it is at the pleasure of the Council to
proceed. There is no problem in making it an emergency ordinance
other than I have to rewrite the ordinance.
Mayor Shearer: I am going to recommend to my colleagues that we
have this as an emergency ordinance.
Seconded by Councilman Tice. No objections.
Mr. Wakefield: The ordinance shall provide that it be effective
immediately upon its adoption.
Motion by Councilman Chappell to introduce emergency ordinance and
adopt; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried on roll call vote as
— 26 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-seven
Ord. #1265 3/10/75
follows: AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 5026 The City Attorney presented:
• ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONSEN.TING.TO AND
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO APPROVE
THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE -
CITY OF COVINA TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PUR-
SUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35270 to
35260 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. (Sanborn)
Motion by Councilman _BtbOne, seconded by Councilman Miller and
carried, to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Browne, 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 RE
Mr.
Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, a comment. I
wasn't
TRANSFER OF CERTAIN
able to contact the City
Attorney
PROPERTY
and I would like to.adviseCouncil
that
if --we adopt thib.resolution we may
be some-
what
in conflict with .the County and the
City of
Covina because they
have not
amended their General Plan and zoning.
Mr. Miller might elaborate
further on this.
Mr. Miller: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the General
. Plan for the City of West Covina shows this
triangle piece area approximately 1 acre as
very low density residential, which allows 4.3 per acre. The City of
Covina is in the process of conducting public hearings on the
General Plan Amendment for the Baptist Seminary that would allow
development to the commercial development. They are also processing
an E.I.R. Inasmuch, as our General Plan shows residential in this
area and does not show any commercial I think as indicated inthe
staff report it would be appropriate to withhold action on.this reso-
lution until such time as the General Plan Amendment is disposed of
in Covina. If the General Plan Amendment is approved in Covina and
this area is added to the city's inventory I think from a legal
standpoint it would be determined that it could be interpretated
that this one small one acre piece is consistent with the General
Plan to go commercial inasmuch as you are dealing with a much larger
piece to the east of it which is a part of it. At the present time
the Covina General Plan shows this as undesignated, more or less like
our transitional areas in our General Plan and until classified it
would be our recommendation to hold action on this. They continued
their public hearing on the matter to the 17th of this month, We
should know at our next meeting on March 24th exactly what the
situation is, either a denial of the General Plan Amendment or
approval.
Mayor Shearer: What does deferring action on this item how
• does this tie in with the last one? When
we first talked about this I think there was
an indication that there might be a package deal. The last item
was the transfer of property from Covina to West Covina, which we
said that is fine - now if we turn around and say we don't want to
commit ourselves on this one until, will Covina turn around and say
we don't want to lose our bargaining power so we are going to hold.
up - what is the situation, Mr. Wakefield? Does the City of Covina
have to agree with the previous one which was the Sanborn property?
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty—eight
RE RES. 5027 3/10/75
Mr. Wakefield: No, Mr. Mayor, the statutory provisions which
govern the procedure involved in these two
transfers of property .require the consent of
the City Councils of each of the affected cities. And if there is
not that agreement then the proceedings can't go forward.
*Mayor Shearer: Mr. Aiassa, have you been in contact with
Covina on this at all as this being of mutual
advantage?
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, a meeting was called.by my staff,
Mr. Zimmerman and myself attended regarding
the possible enlargement of Mr. Sanborn's
theatre and to our knowledge the only one being considered was on
Workman Avenue for annexation and deannexation. It was at the end
of the meeting that Mr. Elton of Covina came up and said we would
like to bring up a parcel and put it into a package deal, so if
we do something for you on Workman we would like you to consider this
triangle and I refused to discuss it because we were not advised that
it was going to be brought up for discussion and we didn't know what
the zoningwas or exact size and location. Neither myself or my staff
has made a formal commitment to Covina that it was going to be a
package deal. We talked to Mr. Sanborn and he says even if he can't
annex to West Covina he will still proceed with his theatre enlarge—
ment. He prefers to annex to West Covina. Mr. Miller's staff has
analyzed the enlargement, it will meet the requirements of our City
if the procedure goes through and follows the proper annexation and
deannexation.
Mayor Shearer: I hate to see the City Council of West Covina
• get embroiled in a battle between county
residents, perhaps some Covina residents and
the Council taking a position here. I think we would be offended
if the reverse were true. I hope this doesn't boil down to that type
of situation.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor, could we recommend the continuance
of this item until such time as the hearings
are held with Covina and the County and
they resolve their problems?
Mayor Shearer: That would be acceptable to me if it is with
the rest of the Council.
Motion by Councilman Browne to continue this matter until the
General Plan revision is sanctioned in Covina. Seconded by Council—
man Miller.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. -Mayor, I think this should be relayed to
the City Council in Covina as to the reasons
for us doing this and what we will do as soon
as they firm up their end of it; because I can see this as the
lighting of thb powder keg and �e haven't had anything like this
happen between Covina and West Covina fora long time and I am not
in the position because of one acre or less to start something like
this off when we have been working together for so long in other
•areas. We should explain our reasons for holding this over and that
we are going to approve it when.the recommendations are met. We are
in a tri—city merger situation on our fire department and this would
only add fuel to the fire and we don't need it at this time. So if
Councilman Browne's motion will not cause that powder keg to be lit
I am all for it.
Councilman Browne: I think the City Manager can convey -.;your concern
as well as that of the Council to the City of
Covina City Manager to convey to their City Council.
CITY COUNCIL Page -Twenty. -nine
RES. 5027 3/10/15
(Mayor Shearer pointed out if this one acre is an integral part of
the development in Covina and we have people turning out here saying
don't let that property go - he felt if Council is serious in letting
this property go that they do it now and put the full burden of the
decision on the Covina Council.)
• Mr. Aiassa:
Mr.
Mayor, I would like
to clear that point.
This
parcel of land is
like a peninsula, they
can
take this piece and
landscape it or put
anything on it,
it has no
influence on making
the project feasible or
not feasible.
It is just
a small leakage.
Mayor Shearer: My question is if we don't care that much why
not do it now?
Mr. Aiassa: If they don't succeed in following through with
it we will have a transitional zone which is
real complicated to their zone because we would
have a problem relating their zoning to our zoning. (Mayor answered:
We wouldn't have any problem if it were in the City of Covina)
If it is annexed after they have the zoning the way they would like to
do it then it falls into their hands as part of that part. If it goes
now it goes as it is now zoned, which is not what they want and they
would have to go through a rezoning perhaps.
Mayor Shearer: But that is their problem. As I said I don't
want to be in the middle of somebody saying
don't let that one acre go because we don't
like their project.
Councilman Chappell: Has the .City of Covina asked us for this pro-
• perty? I see no correspondence so stating.
Mr. Aiassa: No, they.did not make a request until we had
our meeting regarding the Sanborn property and
then their City Engineer - Mr. Elton - tacked
this on at the end of the meeting. We had no knowledge of it whatever.
Mayor Shearer: We have a request from the.owner of the property
to make the transfer much as we received the
request from Mr. Sanborn to make the change on
the other piece of property. It just seemed to me that if we are
committing ourselves to letting the property go sometime in the future
why not do it right now and avoid the problem. The motion though is
to delay the action.
Motion defeated; all voting "no".
Councilman Chappell moved to approve the transfer of the territory
listed in the City of West Covina to Covina as requested; seconded
by Councilman Tice.
RESOLUTION NO. 5027 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO AND
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO APPROVE
THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF WEST COVINA TO
• THE CITY OF COVINA PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35270 TO
35280 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. (Republic Development Company)
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:
- 29 . -
11
CITY COUNCIL
RES. NO. 5027
Page Thirty,, -
3/10/75
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 5028 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, RELINQUISHING AND
TERMINATING -A CERTAIN COVENANT EXECUTED BY
MAURICE R. CHEZ AND MRS. FLORENCE CHEZ.
Motion by Councilman Tice,seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried,
to waive full reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Tice, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
r
RESOLUTION NO. 5029 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CLASSIFYING IDENTIFICA-
TION AND COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES AS PUBLIC
SAFETY MEMBERS."
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the reason
the resolution is before you stems from the
memorandum of understanding which was approved
last July between the City and the Miscellaneous Employee Association.
One of the provisions in that memorandum was that the City would
• prepare a resolution for City Council adoption that will request the
State Legislature to reopen the elective period which was provided
in Senate Bill 37 during 1973. What the resolution refers to is the
action of the legislature which provided a period of 60 days in 1972
in which those identification and communication employees employed in
Police Departments could elect to join the safety member system. At
that time the employees of the City of West Covina were not employed
in the Police Department, they were employed in a separate department
of communications as they are today. It is my view that something
more would have to be done to the statute than simply reopening the
period in which .the employees might make the election in order for the
employees of the City of West Covina to qualify.
Mayor Shearer: And this is something we have already agreed
to do - isn't it? (City Attorney said "yes".)
Motion by Councilman Browne, seconded by Councilman Miller and carried,
to Waive full reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Browne, 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
•CETA, TITLE VI Motion by Councilman Browne to approve the
AGREEMENTS subagreement between County of Los Angeles and
(Staff Report) the City of West Covina, and subagreements between
the City of West Covina and (i) Mount San Antonio
College, (ii) West Covina Unified School District, and (iii) Covina -
Valley Unified School District, and authorize the Mayor to execute
said subagreements. Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried on
roll call vote as follows:
- 3'0 -
-
m~`
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty—one-,
CETA, TITLE VI AGREEMENTS 3/l8/?G
_ AYES: Brow nov Mlllory Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None -
ABSENT: None
AJUSA UEST[RNo INC. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members
Vs CITY OF WEST COVINA of Council, I am sorry
CASE NO. 43864 to report the Dimtriot.Court of Appeals
' has decided'the action involving Azusa
Western against the City° This is the action that arose out of the
1911 Act proceedings for the improvement of Barronoa Street. The
City became involved as an active party defendant in that litigation
when the contractor became bankrupt and the bonding company that had
written the Performance Bond and the Labor and Material Bond on the.,
original contract and also wrote the release bond that was filed by
the contractor to release certain funds that were being hold pursuant
to s stop notice. The Court of Appeals indffgot affirmed the decision -
of the trial court and concluded that the city was wrong in accepting
a release bond executed by the same bonding company that executed the
labor and material bond and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The amount involved is just over $17v000 plus interest in an amount
not yet ascertained. It is my recommendation that the City Council
authorize the payment of the judgment and that we not request a hearing
before the Supreme Court.
Mayor Shearer: Mr. Wakefield, i this something that in paid
for out of the Cityv o General Fond or is it a
_ liability of the insurance carrier?
Mr. Wakefield: Now it is not a,liability of the insurance
carrier because it is not on action based on
�N� the negligence of the City. At this point I have
���a diffioult.timg justifying the conclusion of the court, but they
intorprotated the statute as simply imposing an obligation upon the
City to have a separate and different bonding company and that the
Cityv e failure to do that resulted in the Cityt o liability in this
c000°
Mayor Shearer: Don't you think e grave factor in this is the
fact that mg were the only one left and that it
was not so much a fault of the City?
`
Mr. Wakefield: That is true.
Couhoilman Chappell:. This. is not unusual to have the same bonding
company to do bothv or will this change now
because of this decision?
Mr. Wakefield: This is going to change now booeuom of this.
(Council discussed possible recourse and the
City Attorney axplainedv ending op by saying
the City'a chances would not be very good.) Your motion, Mr.Mayorw
would be to affirm the recommendation of the City Attorney and that
no further action be taken to appeal the judgment.
So moved by Councilman Tice, seconded by
Councilman Chappell,
*Councilman Browne: Mr" Mayor, I hope we learned a lesson on this
one in the double bonding situation. Isn't
there some way that the City in the -future can
get a financial statement on the contractor you are dealing with?
Mr. Wakefield: Councilman Brounew there are two things involved.
Under the existing leu» which requires that the
'
--
`~
CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO. 43864
Page Thirty—two,,,.
3/IO/75
City award construction contracts to the lowest r oiblo bidder
we really donot hanennoohnoppo�rtunity to resolve the. financial aspect
of the oontrmotor~ at"" thetime the award is made. The State has a
procedure but cities are not quite that sophiot1oatgd» we usually rely
lOn% on the Faithful Performance Bond as guaranting the -performance of
the contractor and for that purpose we accept bonds fromoompaniao that
re listed in the County Clerk'o list ofapproved bonding companies and
the bonding companies have e certain rating. They are authorized to
write bonds in a certain dollar amount maximum and within those limits
we accept the prior determination that the bonding company is qualified
to write the bond.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Millgrt Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE Mr. Wakefield advised there is no action required;
BULLETINS the letters were sent with reference to the two
(Staff Report) matters.
Motion by Councilman Browne, seconded by Councilman Miller and carried,
to receive and file"
ACQUISITION
AND
Mayor Shearer:
I am going to make a request
DEVELOPMENT
OF
on this before we get into it
SUNSET SCHOOL
because of the late
hour. I believe if we don't
take some action tonight
that this precludes a
bond issue
in May?
(Mr. Wakefield said:
Yosp either a bond election or
a tax rate
increase
election.) I don't
think we are prepared to vote
for either
situation
tonight, so I would
prefer to continue this item
o a time scheduled.
(Councilman Browne
felt o study ogaoion'uao
So moved by Councilman Browogt seconded by
Councilman Miller and carried.
B.K.K. LANDFILL SITE Mr. Wakefield: This is an informational item.
I just recently had two meet—
ings with Mr. Hart preliminarily
to the drafting of a proposed sublease agreement for the leasing of the
B.K.K. facility from the City to the B.K.K. for operation. Ox Malveny &
Meyers is in the process of drafting o proposed lease between a non—
profit corporation`and the oityv they are in the process of organizing
the non—profit corporation* so we have a target date for July l for the
conclusion of the negotiations and hopefully the sale of the bonds
necessary to acquire the property immediately thereafter. The negotia—
tions are proceeding along the linos previously indicated. We felt it
would not serve any purpose to come back to City Council other than on
an informational basis until we had something down on paper that could
be presented for staff review and ultimately presented to the City
Council for consideration. This means the April termination date of
the conditional use permit will need to be extended and there will be a
recommendation on your next agenda. This can just be received and
filed at this time. `
' So moved by Councilman Choppgllw seconded by
ouncilman Tice and carried.
REPORT ON RESOLUTIONS Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members
PASSED AT SCAG MEETING of Council, you will
recall City Council instructed its City
Council representatives to the General
Assembly of SCAG to vote against a resolution which was proposed.
.The sponsorship of legislation to make SCAG a statutory ogancyo that
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty—three
CITY ATTORNEY — Cont'd. 3/10/75
resolution was finally adopted by the General Assembly on a vote of
36 Ayes to 16 Noes. I think the issue is not settled yet although
the resolution did provide specifically that the legislation would not
provide any taxing power for SCAG but it would be dependent upon
voluntary contributions as it is at the present time. Membership is
.still mandatory and the legislature still has to pass the legislation.
Councilman Tice: Councilman Browne and myself attended that meeting
and I think the taxing situation is just a step
down the road — this is just the first step and
next it will be a mandatory assessment.
Mr. Wakefield: There was a by—law change approved by the General
Assembly. It simply clarified the circumstances
underwhch the so—called division of the house
between counties and cities may be called for. At the present time if
there are two counties.present at the General Assembly,a county repre—
sentative could call for a division of any question and it could be
defeated because there was an even split between the two counties
represented. An amendment to the by—laws requires that at least three
counties be represented before a division can be called and 3/5ths of
the cities present. So it has made the division of the house question
more difficult simply because it is not always easy to get a majority
of the county,..representatives present.
THE MAYOR CALLED A RECESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:40 P.M. FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING FOLLOWED BY
A MEETING OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:50 P.M.
CITY MANAGER
&AFETY TOWN AGREEMENTS
call vote as follows: AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NON—COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION re "RUN FOR THE
SPECIAL OLYMPICS"
(Staff Report)
Motion by Councilman Chappell to approve
Safety Town Agreements with the City of
Ontario, City of Montclair and Ontario —
Montclair School District; seconded by
Councilman Miller and carried on roll
Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
None
None
Councilman Tice moved approval, seconded
by Councilman Miller and carried.
KNORA JACKSON LETTER Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to receive and
file letter from Knora Jackson of 2/19/75
re access facilities to public buildings for handicapped persons.
Mayor Shearer: A question. The report addresses itself
primarily to city hall and public build—
ings. The letter, as I recall, also
addressed itself to private buildings. This report does not address
itself to that question.
r. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, staff has done two things.
1 — we are tackling all public buildings
and the Safety Department has contacted
the County with regard to the court building and the library, and
tomorrow we have a meeting with the Redevelopment Agency to notify the
merchants to see that they provide provisions for the handicapped.
Mayor Shearer: I am.a little confused as to the distinc—
tion, if any, between public buildings
and private. I would like a report that says what the obligation is
33. —
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-four
CITY MANAGER - Cont'd. 3/10/75
legally, not morally, for private buildings and what the City can
do if someone comes in and builds privately without providing for
the handicapped.
(Councilman Tice reminded Mr..Aiassa that he had asked for a report
•dealing with the updating of the Building Code in this regard and had
not yet received it. Mr..Aiassa said such a report would be
furnished, along with a report.answering the Mayor's question, by
the next Council meeting. Councilman Browne stated Janet Williams
has a communication over his signature going out to Mrs. Jackson's
letter which will be in the mail in the morning explaining some of
the things that transpired relative to her inquiries.)
Motion by Councilman Browne, seconded by Councilman Miller and carried,
to receive and file.
PURCHASE OF AUTOMATED
Motion by Councilman -Chappell, seconded
OFFSET PRINT MACHINE
by Councilman Miller, to approve of waiv-
(Staff Report)
ing the formal bidding process on the
basis that this item is only available.
from one source; and accordingly it is
further recommended tha the City enter into a three (3) year lease -
purchase agreement with a
sixty (60) day trial period for the total
amount of $19,617.99 with
Bank of America for one Multigrphics total
copy system model ##4150.
Total amount to include sales tax and
interest at 7-4% annually
on the unpaid ,balance; computed payments
to be $544.92 plus $160.00
for full maintenance agreement, a total
of $704.92 monthly. Motion
carried on roll call'vote as follows:
AYES:
Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES:
None
• ABSENT:
None
YELLOW CAB COMPANY
(Mr. Aiassa advised no complaints or
comments have been received, staff
feels the request for a rate increase
should be granted.)
Motion by Councilman Browne, seconded by Councilman Miller, to
grant the request of the Yellow Cab Company of the. San Gabriel
Valley for a rate increase. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows: AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded
APPOINTMENT
by
Councilman Tice and carried,
authorizing
the extension of the provi-
sional appointment of
Yvonne Calmes to
the class of Junior Accountant
to May 319 1975.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS:
a)
Parking
of Overweight vehicles on City
Streets
and Private Property;
b)
Request
of Mr. Cruz re maintenance on
portion
of City owned property (2/10/75);
c)
Covina Irrigating
Co. annual stockholders
meeting,
2/15/75;
•
d)
Progress
Report - UUP ##71 (B.K.K.)
Motion to receive and file iterds-�bi`c ,:and,--d,�-.by Councilmah-Jice,
seconded by Councilman Miller and carried.
Mayor Shearer: Item a is the one that earlier this even-
ing and also at our last meeting,
Mrs. Musick addressed herself to and we
- 34
•
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-five
CITY MANAGER - Cont'd. 3/10/75
referred to the Traffic Committee for a recommendation and report
back to us. -It seems to me in the meantime the Council should take
some action - Mr. Wakefield, you might advise what that action
should be - to declare a moratorium as it relates to this particular
location. I would not propose a moratorium that would allow the
huge semi -trucks now parked on South Azusa south of Francisquito to
move into the City. What do you suggest?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, I.am certain that there have been -
discussions with the Chief of Police with re-
ference to this particular problem involving
Mrs. Musick. I really think that is the most critical of the pro-
blems presently before the City and City Council. I would think
that the appropriate motion would be to request the Chief of Police
not to issue any more citations to Mrs. Musick until the matter is
resolved.
Mayor Shearer: That would be my feeling in the matter since we
have referred it to the Traffic Committee for
consideration. It may be that in the ultimate
we don't agree with Mrs. Musick but in the interim to continue
ticketing isn't going to accomplish anything.
(Councilman Tice asked if by doing this are we possibly opening it
up to some one else requesting this also in the interim time and
the Mayor answered - quite possibly, but the point Mrs. Musick made
two weeks ago was a good one with regard to the fact.a recreational
vehicle is allowed to park and even sit out on the street and the
reason for this ordinance is because of weight to•protect the city
streets, so there is a inconsistency in the ordinance.)
• Motion by Councilman Chappell to request the Chief of Police not to
issue any more citations to Mrs. Musick until this matter is resolved;
seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
APPRAISAL SERVICE Motion by Councilman Browne to approve the
(Staff Report) appraisal amount allocated to the Verne Cox
Company; seconded by Councilman Chappell and
carried .on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
VACATION Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
PERMISSION Councilman Browne and carried, to approve the
request of Mr. Aiassa for vacation time from
3/25/75 to 4/4/75.
VINCENT AVENUE Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor,.I was under
PROJECT the impression that for
a year we were going to allow a lefthand turn on
Vincent Avenue turning into Wickes, the bank,
the car wash and the gas station. I must have picked that up from a
briefing rather than from the motion made that evening of the meeting
because when I checked into it I found we had closed that turn off
to start with. I would like to ask the Council's approval of allowing
• that opening to exist for a year while we watch and see what happens
and see if we really have the problem alleged to take place. If not,
then leave it open but if the problem exists then we should close it.
But in all fairness I think we should have a lefthand turn there
because those are businesses that bring in sales tax revenue and we
are liable to be doing something that we really don't want to do.
John Lippitt Mr. Mayor and members of Council, there was an
City Engineer item on the Public Works Agenda which spoke to
-35
L�
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-s-i—
VINCEW AVENUE PROJECT 3/10/75
the process on Vincent Avenue. The plans will only be approved by
the Council after a full public hearing. We tried to emphasize the
fact that there will be plenty of times in the process where the
people will have a chance to speak. Right now a draft of the-E.I.R.
has been prepared which speaks to this issue. There is a meeting on
Wednesday morning with all the merchants on Vincent Avenue in the
immediate area to discuss the total project. The plans are not
final; it is just a preliminary plan at this point, the impact
should be reviewed and the Traffic Committee has not reviewed it
yet or taken action on it. So it is a long way from staff point
of making a final recommendation or decision. It is our intention
at this time to propose that, but all the impacts will have to be
studied and probably some time in April the final decision will have
to be made by Council.
MAYOR'S REPORTS
PROCLAMATION Hearing no objections the Mayor proclaimed
"Health Week" March 6/22, 1975, as community
health week international.
ALCOHOLISM Mayor Shearer: We have a request from the
COUNCIL REQUEST Alcoholism Council of the
East San Gabriel Valley and Pomona Valley
to assist them in getting more funds. I
interpret that as a direct request for funds from the City. I
would recommend'that this request be referred to staff for a
recommendation much along the same lines as our support of Hot
Line.
•So moved by Councilman Tice, seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried.
W.C. CHAMBER OF Mayor Shearer: We have a letter from the
COMMERCE REQUEST Chamber of Commerce requesting
permission to sponsor the Circus. I don't
understand the need for their requesting our
permission?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, it relates to the small parade they
are proposing to have and they are really re-
questing that the City waive the bond
requirement and issuea permit..
Councilman Chappell moved approval:df`:.'the.r.equest and waiving of
the fee permit; seconded by Councilman Browne and carried.
CITY OF INGLEWOOD Mayor Shearer: I came across an article in a
ORDINANCE newsletter that the City of
Inglewood publishes, it referred to an ordinance
they have relating to Property Nuisances.It
caught my eye, particularly with reference to the problem we have
on Michelle and other spots in the City. I wrote to the Mayor of.
Inglewood and he responded with a copy of the ordinance. I would
like to have this copy of the ordinance referred to staff to study
it and see if perhaps there might be parts of it that might be
•applied to our city in an attempt to take care of some of our re-
occurring problems. I will make that as a motion.
Seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
-;36-
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-seven
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS 3/10/75
(Councilman Tice commended the Tribune for carrying on the war re
the Nox device - saying he felt the same way.)
Councilman Chappell: At the meeting of the League of Cali-
fornia Cities I was elected for a full
•term as alternate to LAFCO. I was also
appointed -....by the League of.California Cities to be on the National
Community of Public Safety and also State Public Safety Committee.
Also we were asked at the last League meeting to inform the citizens
of the Dill's Bill, SB 275, and the ramif.i6ations it will have on
them as individuals. So I will attempt to get this information to
you before the next meeting so you can study it. The thought is the
public had better be aware of what this bill is going to mean to us
and the city and them as individuals if it goes through. I am not
anti -employee at all because I think a' good number of employees
are just as worried about the.bill as we are. The public does not
know the cost and ramifications that could come with collective
bargaining, compulsory arbitration and the right to strike and I
think it is time to get the papers to tell our side of.the story
and the citizens side of the story and then perhaps the.legislature
will not be so readily in line to pass this bill as they seem.to be
now. Our report at the League meeting stated the:,fabt that even
the complete passage of this bill is passing away and the
legislators are starting to take a second look at the huge sums
of money it may"cost the State of California. So I will get the
information out to you and let you study it and perhaps'we can
become an information center on this bill through our local news-
papers. I -am sure the Mayors of our surrounding cities will all be
involved in informing their public.
• Mayor Shearer: I apologize, Mayor Pro tem. I was,going to do
this early in the meeting.- I congratulate you
on your election to LAFCO.
I might also say that we did correspond with
various legislators as a -result of our meeting and I did receive
response back from Senator :Deukmejian , which was on a postcard,
and he indicated he didn't formally respond to mail from outside
of his district other than a postcard and on the bottom he put on a
P.S. I am opposed to 58275, and thanked us for our comment.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS
dl047/ClO5l. Seconded by
vote as follows: AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Motion by Councilman Chappell to approve
Demands totalling $796,518.60 as listed..
on Demand Sheets B658A. B659A, C870-71A,
Councilman Tice and carried on roll call
Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
None
None
REORGANIZATION OF (Mayor Shearer relinquished the gavel to
CITY COUNCIL the City Clerk to conduct the reoganiza-
tion of City Council)
Mayor Shearer: Mrs. Preston, I would like to place in
nomination for Mayor for the 1975/76 year
the name of a man that has previously
•served in this capacity and brings to it more experience than the
other four of us combined, having served two years - Mayor Pro tem
Ken Chappell.
Seconded by Councilman Browne.
Councilman Tice moved that the nominations be closed; seconded by
Mayor Shearer.
r•
.37 -
`4
CITY COUNCIL
REORGANIZATION OF COUNCIL
City Clerk:
Page Thirty-eight
3/10/75
Gentlemeh, you have three ways to go.
A roll call vote, a secret ballot, or
a motion to do it by acclamation.
Mayor Shearer moved to elect Councilman Chappell as Mayor by
•acclamation. Seconded by Councilman Browne and carried on roll call
vote as follows: AYES: Browne, Miller, Tice, Shearer, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Chappell: Before assuming the chair, may I make
the nomination for Mayor Pro tem?
(Council agreed) I make the nomination
of Councilman Nevin Browne as Mayor Pro tam for the coming year.
Seconded by Councilman Tice.
Councilman Tice moved that the nominations be closed; seconded by
Councilman Miller.
Councilman Tice moved to cast an unanimous ballot; seconded by
Councilman Miller -and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Chappell: I would like to thank my fellow Councilmen for
giving me the honor and privilege of serving as
Mayor for the coming year. I know great things
are in the wind for West Covina. We have our Redevelopment Project
•to be completed this year. We have a tremendous amount of inquiries
from people interested in our city; we have the citizens of our
community participating now more than ever under the leadership of
Mayor Shearer; and we have our Chamber of Commerce reactivated and
participating in support of our,City. I can only see that we are
on our way to doing bigger and better things and it is due to no
small effort on the part of Mayor Shearer in his year that many of
these situations are developing as they are. I am sure we will be
proud of our City and ourselves as Councilmen that we are represent-
ing the City as it moves ahead in this coming year. I congratulate
our new Mayor Pro tam and at this time appoint you to handle Demands.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask you to take on
one commitment - I think it is about time we
have an understanding on the length of meetings.
Mayor Chappell: I will say this that I hope the City Manager and
staff will not provide us with four or five
hearings at one time in the future. Actually
you have had only one meeting that has gone this long.
Mayor Pro tem Browne: Mr. Mayor, it is late in the evening so
I won't prolong this. I just want to
thank my fellow councilmen for the
confidence they have placed in me.
• ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-�
man Tice and carried,to adjourn meeting at 12:15 P.M.
to 7:30 P.M. on March 17, 1975.
APPROVAL:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK