10-14-1975 - Regular Meeting - Minutes0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WkZT COVINA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 14, 1975
The regular meeting of the City Council called to order at
7830 P.M. in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Ken
Chappelli the Pledge of Allegiance was given, followed by
the invocation by the Reverend James Schultz of the First
Baptist Church,
ROLL CALL
Presents Mayor Chappells Councilmen+ Shearer,
Miller, Browne, Tice
Absents None
Others Presents
George Aiassa, City Manager
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Lela Preston, City Clerk
Michael Miller, Acting Public Service Dir.
Harry Thomas, City Engineer
Ramon Diaz, Acting Planning Director
Frank O'Connor, Administrative Analyst, Jr.
Gus Salazar, Redevelopment Coordinator
Kevin Northcraft, Administrative Analyst
Eric Cohen, Staff Reporter - Sentinel
•
Bill Freemon, Staff Reporter - S.G.V.D.T.
PROCLAMATION
"NATIONAL BUSINESS
There being a representation from the
WOMEN Is WEEK"
West Covina Business and Professional Women's
Club in the audience, Mayor Chappell, in
concurrence with.the Council, took this
matter out of Agenda order.
0
Mayor Chappell: The West Covina Business and Professional
Women's Club has asked the,Mayor to
proclaim "National Business Women•s Week"
October 19-25, 1975• I will proclaim this, if there are no
objections.
Mayor Chappell read the'Proclamation and
presented it to Mrs. Vernette Pemberton, President of the Club.
Mayor Chappell] Congratulations to your group. We wish
you wells keep up the good work. I think
you have come a long way since 1925.
Mrs. Pemberton thanked the Mayor and the
Council, and introduced the Club representation.
- 1 -
CITY COUNCIL
Approval of Minutes
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 16tt 1975
• (Adj Reg Mtg1 and
September 22, 1975
October 14, 1975
Page Two
The following correction was made
to the minutes of September 22, 1975•
Page 5, paragraph 4 should reads
"...of that action could be unconsti-
tutional. Were you planning..."
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to approve the minutes of September
160 1975 as submitted, and the minutes of September 22, 1975 as
corrected. Motion carried.
CONSENT
CALENDAR
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a)
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
b)
BOARD.OF SUPERVISORS
•
c)
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
d)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mayor Chappell explained the procedure
of the Consent Calendar items and
asked if there were comments on any of
the following items:
Notice of Intention to Relinquish
Highway Right of Way adjacent to
San Bernardino Freeway. (Refer to
City Attorney)
Re Contract Cities Liability Insurance
Program. (Informational. Receive and
file)
Los Angeles Region - Copy of B.K.K.
Landfill - Grout Curtain Emplacement
Procedure Report: (Receive and file)
Notice of approval of proposed transfer
of territory from City of West Covina
to City of Covina. (Covina Southerly
Annexation District No. 67)
(Informational. Receive and file)
e) STATE SOLID WASTE Re Coordination of City and County
MANAGEMENT BOARD Solid Waste Management.Planning
Activities. (Refer to Staff)
f) LOS ANGELES COUNTY Re Annual inspection of West Covina
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH City Jail. (Receive and refer to
SERVICES Chief of Police)
g) LEUKEMIA SOCIETY OF Request permission to conduct annual
AMERICA, INC. fund-raising drive October 15 to
November 15, 1975 and waiver of
Charity Business License Fee.
(Approved in prior years.
Recommend approval)
• h) CITY OF WALNUT Notice of Public Hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 7-75 for a Drive-Thru
Dairy Store, 19677 E. Valley Blvd.
Walnut. (Informational Report.
(Receive, and file)
- 2 -
0
CJ
CITY COUNCIL
Consent Wandar
October 14, 1975
Page Three
i) WALNUT VALLEY Requesting review of a Draft
WATER DISTRICT Environmental Impact Report
covering proposed construction
of the Andrew J. Rodzinak Reservoir.
( Refer to Staff) .
2. PLANNING COMMISSION
a) SUMMARY OF ACTION
3. RECREATION AND PARKS
COMMISSION
a) SUMMARY OF ACTION
b) ACTION ITEMS
4. PERSONNEL BOARD
a) MINUTES
b) ACTION ITEMS
October 1, 1975• (Accept and file)
September 24, 1975.. (Accept and file)
To be held over to October 27, 1975•
September 18, 1975• (Receive and file)
Refer to City Attorney's Agenda
Items No. 4 and No. 8
5. HUMAN RELATIONS.
COMMISSION
a) SUMMARY OF ACTION September 25, 1975. (Accept and file)
6. ABC APPLICATIONS Chief of Police recommends NO PROTEST.
a) JUG& JIGGER ENTERPRISES, INC. dba JUG & JIGGER
William E. Thompson, Dir/Sec 2650 E. Garvey Avenue
421 E. Sycamore, Glendora
b) YUN GUNH,HEARN
dba ROYAL CREST DAIRY
143 N. Kenmore,
1818 E. Rowland Avenue
Los,Angeles
7. CLAIMS FOR, DAMAGES
FILED WITH..CITY CLERK
a) MR. & MRS, FRANK P. WILSON
Re damaged wearing apparel
1642 Walnut Creek Pkwy. W.C.
from newlT painted picnic
benches. (Deny and refer to
City Attorney and Insurance
Carrier)
b) VINCENT F. & THELKA HOUSE,
Re damages resulting from
dba V & T ENTERPRISES
traffic accident with police
358 Dalesford Drive
unit. (Deny and refer to
La Puente.and AETNA
City Attorney and Insurance
Casualty and Surety,
Carrier)
.,P.O. Box 1315
San Bernardino
_3
CITY COUNCIL
Consent Calenda
c) FISHMAN & GEORGE
357 S. Robertson Blvd.
Beverly Hills, Attorney
on behalf of Emille, Lillie,
Monique and Lenitra Friend
13224 Arcturus Ave.,Gardena
d) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.
P.O. Box 3249 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles
8, ANNUAL WATER REPORT
October 14, 1975
Page Four
Re damages resulting from .
traffic accident with police
unit. (Deny and refer to
City Attorney and Insurance
Carrier)
Re damages to gas meter set
assembly located at 944 West
Covina Parkway which occurred
on or about September 11, 1975
during curb and sidewalk
installations. (Refer to City
Attorney)
Informational (Receive and file)
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Browne to approve the Consent.Calendar
items. Motion carried on roll call vote as followss
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENTS None
PRESENTATION
PLAQUE TO CITY OF WEST On behalf of the West Covina Optimist
• COVINA FROM OPTIMIST CLUB Club, Mr. Radofsky and Mr. Chavez made
the following presentation.
Mr. Radofsky: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, it is all too
often that the City gives out
Proclamations and Plaques to the
citizens groups for achievements that they have had. This time
the Optimist Club of West Covina would like to present to the City
of West Covina,.in the spirit of the upcoming Bicentennial, a
montage of the history of our nation.
Mr. Chavez: It gives me great pleasure to present
this to the City of West Covina, Mr.
Mayor. This is a Plaque that was
designed by.the Optimists Club at Headquarters which we felt, as
a Club, that we could donate to the City of West Covina.
The gentlemen gave a brief history of
the Plaque.
Mayor Chappell: On behalf of the Council and the
citizens of West Covina, I accept
this Plaque with honor. We will place
it in the City Hall where our citizens will have the opportunity to
view it during the Bicentennial Year,.
• We certainly thank you for thinkingof
something like thist it is beautiful. Good luck to your organization.
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
Resolution No,� 5120 Page Five
RESOLUTION NO. 5120 Mayor Chappell presenteds
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
COMMENDING GEORGE AIASSA FOR HIS 25
YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE
FIELD OF CITY MANAGEMENT.
• Mayor Chappell read the Resolution
in its entirity. The Resolution highlighted Mr. Aiassa's
outstanding and dedicated service to the City, as well as his
many contributions.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Tice to approve said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows
AYESs Shearer, Miller,Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOESs None
ABSENTa None
Mayor Chappells George, we certainly -commend you
once again for 25 years of service
to our community. We know that there
are a lot more years left in you, so keep up the good work. The
people of this community certainly commend you for your efforts
and continued efforts on their behalf.
(The Resolution will be perma-plaqued.)
PUBLIC WORKS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY AID LOCATIONS Citywide
TO CITIES FUNDING
RESOLUTION NO. 5121 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING AN ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT
OF COUNTY AID TO CITIES'FUNDS FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF SELECT SYSTEM STREETS.
Mr. Thomass This Resolution is a requirement in order
to receive the Aid to Cities Funds. This
particular request is for general main-
tenance of City streets. This action is taken on an annual basis to
secure funds for the current fiscal year.
Motion made by.Councilman:Tice, seconded
by Councilman Browne to waive further reading of the body of said
Resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded
by Councilman Browne to adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on
roll call vote as followss
AYESs Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOESs None
ABSENTS None
f,?
CITY COUNCIL
PlIblig Works
TRACT NO. 18205
INTENTION TO VACATE WALK-
WAY - CAJON CIRCLE
October 14, 1975
Page Six
LOCATION: Between Azusa Avenue and
Cajon Circle, northerly of Francisquito
Avenue
RESOLUTION N0. 5122 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A
WALKWAY DEDICATED PER TRACT NO. 18205
ADJACENT TO A CERTAIN PORTION OF
AZUSA AVENUE. (Setting November 10,
1975 for Protest Hearing)
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of said Resolution. Motion carried.
Councilman Tice indicated that he
wondered if this would really solve the problem that we have,
or whether it would be just moving it to another area.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TRACT NO. 27416 LOCATION: Calle Baja East of Camino
RELEASE BOND De Gloria.
PICKERING ENTERPRISES
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to authorize release of National
Automobile and Casualty Insurance Company Faithful Performance
Bond No. 211700 in the amount of $5,000. Motion carried.
TRACT N0. 31095, LOCATION: Northerly.of Amar Road,
STREET & ALLEY VACATION adjacent to Ridgewood Drive.
WOODLANE DRIVE
RESOLUTION 5123 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
VACATING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF
A STREET WHICH HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED
BY RELOCATION (WOODLANE DRIVE & ALLEY)
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Browne to waive further reading of the
body of said Resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
• seconded.by Councilman Browne to adopt said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6 _ ,'
CITY COUNCIL
Public Works
TRACT N0. 31095 -
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A
CORPORATION QUITCLAIM
DEED - DONALD L. BREN CO.
RESOLUTION N0, 5124
ADOPTED
October 14, 1975
Page Seven
LOCATIONS Woodland Drive, northerly
of Amar Road, adjacent to Ridgewood
Drive.
The City,Attorney Presented:
A`RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY. OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
CORPORATION QUITCLAIM DEED AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION THEREOF.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of.the
body of said.Resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote as followss
AYES# Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES # None
ABSENTS None
TRACT NO. 32580 LOCATIONS Southerly of Giano Street,
ACCEPT GRANT DEED - westerly of Gemini Street.
ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
• RESOLUTION NO. 5125 The City Attorney Presented#
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY
ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR
SEWER PURPOSES AND DIRECTING THE
RECORDATION THEREOF.
Motion made by Councilman,Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES# Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell..
NOES# None
ABSENT # None
PROJECT NO., SP-?3005 LOCATIONi Northeast corner of Cameron
AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT FOR Avenue and Barranca Street.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
VIGGO RASMUSSEN
• Mr. Wakefield briefly reviewed the
history of the matter.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Browne to (a) approve a total settlement
for the land,, improvements taken and severance for the property
located at the northeast corner of Cameron Avenue and Barranca
Street in the amount of $17,500.1 and.(b) to authorize the
CITY COUNCIL
Public Works
October 14, 1975
Page Eight
expenditure of $5,500. from the Small City Cooperative Projects
Account for the balance of the recommended settlement not
included in the court deposit. Motion carried on roll call vote
as followss
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
FIVE YEAR PUBLIC
WORKS PROGRAM
1975-80, REVISION
Mr. Thomas explained that an exchange
of funds was requested because a Resolution similar to that just
adopted for ATC funds is required. The Vincent Avenue project, at
this point, is too far along to qualify for ATC fundingi therefore
Staff recommended a switch of the ATC funding to the Walnut Avenue
project, which has not yet commenced. And, that Gas Tax monies
originally budgeted for the Walnut Avenue project be switched to
South Vincent'Avenue.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to approve exchange of funds between
Walnut Avenue project and South Vincent Avenue, et al project, as
indicated in the..City Engineer's Report. Motion carried on roll
call vote as followss
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
JOB STATUS REPORT
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to
receive and file the Job Status
Report. Motion carried.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Next regular meeting Tuesday,
October 21, 1975 at 7130 P.M.
CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1278
The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING PART 14B TO ARTICLE IX,
CHAPTER 2 - ZONING OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING THE
PLANNED ADMINISTRATIVE RESEARCH (PAR)
ZONE.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman
Miller to waive further reading of the
body of said Ordinance.
Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman
Miller to adopt said Ordinance. Motion
carried on roll call vote
as followss
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice, `=
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None ,
.'.
;r
-8-
CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
October 14, 1975
Page Nine
RESOLUTION NO. 5126 The City Attorney presented&
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA* CALIFORNIA
DENYING AMENDMENT NO. 125 RELATING
TO THE MAINTENANCE OF HORSES IN THE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of said Resolution.
Councilman Tice+ Staff is coming back with recommen-
dation of approval, I am assuming.
I still find it rather difficult to
approve this. I have no objection to the 20,000 square feet for
the maintenance of horses, but I do object to the area where
they keep livestock. I think it should be restricted, not through-
out the whole City. If this comes through again, I think it
should be an overlay type of approach in the east portion of the
City. I know there are some lots scattered throughout very heavy
residential areas where it is possible to keep livestock and I
don't think that is what we want. I think it should be restricted
to the east area of the City in an overlay type of approach.
Councilman Browne] Are you referring to an overlay zoning
over the area districts that are
concerned?'
Councilman Tices I think I would be satisfied with that.
Councilman Browner Staff is recommending a Study Session.
I think to do justice to this, we
should sit in a Study Session to iron
out some of the minor details that prevented us from passing the
Ordinance.
Mayor Chappells I would have to agree because I would
certainly vote down the amendment
without a Study Session to put all of
our feelings into the regulations themselves. I think if we vote
this down, and the.Chair calls for a Study Session, we will come
up with a better project than we have right now.
Councilman Millers I concur. I feel that under R-1,
Zoning No. 4, the wordage needs some
clarity. And, I do have some reserva-
tions about the 20,000 square feet.
Also, in relation, the letter that was
given to us - there seems to be a communication problem between the
County Health Department and the City in giving out standards to
the people out there. Possibly this is an area that we can pretty
much help the County understand our ordinances and give them what-
ever necessary information they need, so that when they are out in
the City of West Covina they are giving our standards and not their
standards as to how many feet away from human habitation, or
property lines.
Councilman Shearer&
Would it be
table this
Session?
-9-
parlimentary correct to
matter pending a Study
CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
October 14, 1975
Page Ten
Mr. Wakefields The Council has concluded its Hearing
on this matter. Your action at your
last meeting was to deny the amendment.
This Resolution confirms that recommendation.
The appropriate procedure would be to
simply pass the Resolution, hold the Study Session, and give what-
ever direction as may be appropriate to Staff with reference to
further proceedings by the Planning Commission.
Motion carried to waive further
reading of the. body of said Resolution.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Shearer to adopt said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows
AYES# Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES# None
ABSENTS None
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Tice to instruct Staff to hold a Study
Session to further reconstruct the Ordinance to the satisfaction
of the City Council. Motion carried.
HEARINGS
• AMENDMENT NO. 129 Proposed Amendment to Section 9218,
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION Chapter 2 - Zoning, Article IX
CITY INITIATED of the West Covina Municipal Code
pertaining to the grading and exca-
vation of land outside of the Hillside
Overlay Zone and certification that
the Categorical Exemption is consistent
with the State of California Environ-
mental Quality Act.
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2608. (Proof of
Publication in the West Covina Tribune on October 2, 1975 received.
No mailed notices required.)
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Browne to receive. Motion carried.
Mr. Diaz, Acting Planning Director,
briefly summarized the Staff Report dated September 17, 1975,
wherein Staff reported,that the Ordinance passed on March 25, 1974
amending sections 9216.2 and 9218 of the West Covina Municipal
Code relating to the grading and excavation of property and
extending the amount.of property within the Hillside Overlay Zone
did not include any provision for a property owner to regrade his
property to improve his drainage pattern. Therefore, Staff
recommended this Amendment to permit grading for emergency drainage
purposes only,as determined by the Director of Building and Safety.
- 10
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS.- Amendment No. 129
October 14, 1975
Page Eleven
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF AMENDMENT
NO. 129, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.
IN FAVOR None.
IN OPPOSITION None.
THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Browne to
approve Amendment No. 129 and the
Categorical Exemption therefor.
Motion carried.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 493 Proposed Change of Zone from R-A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (Residential -Agricultural) to 0-S
CITY INITIATED (Open Space) on certain parcels of
excess land created by the State
freeway widening project and certifi-
cation that the Categorical Exemption
is consistent with the State of
California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2609. (Proof of
Publication in the West Covina Tribune on October 2, 1975 received.)
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Browne to receive. Motion carried.
(The following record of this Hearing
has been transcribed verbatim.)
Mr. Diaz: Mr. Mayor, Members of.the City Council,
on September 17th of this year the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution
2609 recommending that the City Council rezone certain parcels from
R-A, their existing zoning, to Open Space.
The Environmental Quality Element,
which the City Council adopted in January of this year, calls
for certain scenic highways to be established within the City.
One of these being I-10, the San Bernardino Freeway.
.The Environmental Quality Element
was reviewed by Caltrans, both in Sacramento and in'Los Angeles.
We received no objections to any portion of that Element, which
included the Scenic Highways portion of the General Plan.
The current General Plan, which was
adopted in-1969, also shows a scenic corridor landscaping along
the San Bernardino Freeway. So, as early as 1969, prior to the
requirement by the State of California for a Scenic Highway Zone
or an Open Space Element, a more extensive treatment of land-
scaping was believed necessary along that freeway.
The State has acquired in
parcels that are not utilized within the freeway. And,
of the size, topography, limited access or proximity to
fee many -✓
because
the freeway
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No, 493 Page Twelve
are generally unsuitable for development. Not all freeway excess
parcels are being included in this Zone change. Just those parcels
which we felt were not suitable for development.
• You have, within the packet which
was submitted to you, two sets of maps. One set describing the
parcels and giving them a letter code, and a second set showing
these maps with the surrounding land use.
I would now like to go through a
brief slide presentations I will'try to go through it rather
quickly, and indicate what the problems are in each parcel. If
you wish to follow along, just taking the first set of maps or
the second set will do it.
This is Parcel B that is showsn on
the map. And, this is a slide shot of Parcel A that is on that
map. Parcel B was formerly in the freeway right-of-way, as can
be seen. We could not determine from the area whether it was
landscaped at one time or not. Now, Parcel A, on the south side
of the freeway, north of Garvey Avenue between Sunkist and Orange;
total area of the parcel is 2,875 square feet. Staff feels that
because of its size, it should not be developed and rezoned to
anything but Open Space. This is Parcel B looking southwest, and
this is Parcel B looking south. You will note the slope problems
there. Again, as I indicated, Parcel B was part of the freeway
right-of-way. Total area of Parcel B is 20,372 square feet, but
there are problems there with the drainage easement, and slope
problems.
• This is the aerials the northerly
piece is Parcel C on your map on page 2. Parcel C involves a
total area of 27,605 square feet. Parcel C was in the freeway
right-of-way originally, and it was landscaped. This is looking
south from Parcel C; and, this is looking southeast. There are
some problems on Parcel C with regard to access, but, primarily,
again, Parcel C was in the original freeway right-of-way and was
landscaped prior to the widening of that right-of-way.
Now, this is the aerial indicating
Parcels D, E and F. All were in the freeway right-of-way, but
were not landscaped.
This is Parcel ll. You will note
the extreme slope on the south. Parcel D has a total area of
51,967 square feet. But when we cut it down in terms of useable
area, eliminating the slope, it has a total area of 39,150 square
feet, which is smaller than our Neighborhood -Commercial Zoning
requirement of 4 acres. This is Parcel D looking south. You will
note the fact that it is level adjacent to the freeway; that makes
it somewhat unsuitable for residential development. Such develop-
ment would be inconsistent with our newly adopted Noise Element of
the General Plan. This is an alley, which is the only access to
Parcel D. If we were to place multiple -residential or commercial
development on Parcel D, access would, indeed, be a tremendous
• problem.
This is the south side of Parcel E.
Again, not the slope. Parcel E has a total area of 36,198 square
feet, but when we eliminate the slope area, we have a total useable
of 27,820 square feet. This is a shot of Parcel E showing the slope
and the amount of grading that would be necessary if access were to
be forced unto Garvey Drive. Again, not a tremendously advantageous.
situation for development because of cite/distance problems.
- 12 -
0
•
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change .No, 493 Page Thirteen
This is Parcel F. Again, you will
note the slopes on Garvey and Lark Ellen. This.is Parcel F
looking due east. Again, I'd like to note the slope on Lark
Ellen; the stairway up to Lark Ellen. Parcel F is 19,384 square
feet, but when we get down to the useable area, we are only
talking about 12,000 square feet. Again, this is Parcel F
looking towards the intersection, and we note the cite/distance
problems.
Mayor Chappell: Hold it just a second. When you are
driving down that street, just before
you get to the place where the first
car is with the taillights on, we are going to have a,lot of
wrecks there because the vision is practically non-existent as you
come around that curve. I,wonder if that could be called to some-
one's attention because I can visualize a lot of problems, especially
if someone is not adhering to the speed limit along that street. If
something could be done to get that slope regraded or something so
that you would have a little longer vision as you go around that:
curve, it might certainly help us in the future as far as traffic
is concerned. But, that probably should go to the Traffic Committee
but I thought I would bring it up at this time as to my observations
of that location.
Mr. Diaz:
Yes, Mr. Mayor.
This is an aerial indicating the
northerly pieces G and H. Again, G and H were in the former
freeway right�-of-way. Both pieces were landscaped.
Parcel G is approximately 43,000
square feet. The terrain there is level to sloping.
Parcel H has 4,926 square feet and
problems with sloping. Again, I would like to emphasize that
both of these parcels were in the former freeway right-of-way, as
can be seen by the aerial, and were landscaped.
This is a shot of Parcel G looking
south for theright-of-way.: And, G looking north showing limited
access from Azusa Avenue. Where the freeway fence ends;, and
the yellow building - that is the only access to that parcel from
Azusa Avenue. If we are talking about residential development,
again, that type of development might, indeed, be inconsistent
with our Noise Element of the General Plan because of its proximity
to the freeway,
This is a shot of Parcel H looking
east. Our records currently show no additional.excess freeway
parcels north of the San Bernardino Freeway on the east side of
Azusa. We feel that in the future there may be some additional
excess freeway parcels created there. But, our records at this
time don't show it. So, H appears on that map to be isolated.
Also, as indicated in the Report, Parcel H is designated.as a
City Yard, and it is actually a State,.Yard for storage of equipment,
This is an aerial along Hollenbeck
showing Parcels J, K and L. This is a shot of Parcel J looking
north. Again, note the slope. Total area of Parcel J is some
25,439 square feet`, but when you get down to the useable area,
we are talking about 16,958 square feet.
- 13 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS - Zone Ch_anae No, 493
October 14, 1975
Page Fourteen
This is a shot of Parcel K looking
northeasterly. Again, the slope is about 15 feet plus from the
street. This is a shot of Parcel K looking easts note the drop
on Garvey Avenue, and the slope on Hollenbeck.
• This is a shot of Parcel L looking
northeast. Before I forget, Parcel K is 30,623 square feet and
when you get down to useable area, we are talking about 21,600
square feet. Parcel L, that total area is 22,739 sgaure feets.
useable area is cut down to 14, 605 square feet.. This is Parcel
L looking northeast, again. Note the degree of slope cutting
down the amount of flat land that could be developed if it would
be consistent with our General Plan, which, as I have indicated
earlier, it may very well not be.
This is an aerial of the sliver,
as Mr. Miller is pointing to, Parcel M. Parcel M was formerly
part of the freeway right-of-way and was landscaped. Also,
Parcels J. K and L were in the former freeway right-of-way.
Now, Parcel M was in the former freeways right-of-way and was
landscaped. This is a shot of Parcel M looking north. Again,
you can see the limited size. That Parcel has a total area of
12,029 square feet. Too small for a type of development in
terms of West Covina standards. Even the Service -Commercial Zone
has a limitation of 15,000 square feet with a minimum width of
100 feet, minimum depth of 140 feet.
This is a shot of,Parcel N looking
northwest.
• This is an aerial showing Parcel P
which is on the map where Mr. Miller is pointing out. Parcel P
is 39,672 square feet in area. It has problems with topography.
Again, this parcel was part of the former freeway right-of-way
and was landscaped.
We had some problems with Parcel R
and it is not on the aerial. Parcel R is between the old and
new Garvey realignment.
This is a shot of Parcel P looking
east; note the slope, lack of depth and the unusual shape of the
parcel making it relatively unsuitable for development in terms
of the City of West Covina standards. .
This is a shot of.Parcel R, a very
small piece. Total area of Parcel R is 3,688 square feet.
This is an aerial of Parcels S and
T. They are very small parcels. Parcel S has a.total of 300
square feet. Parcel T has a total of 720 square feet.
This is an aerial indicating Parcel U.
which is on the right-hand side. Parcel U has a total of 59413
square feet, but, as can be seen, it is a little bit slopy. So,
we find that this parcel is unsuitable for development.
That is it for the slides.
14 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS - Zone Change No. 493
October 14, 1975
Page Fifteen
Again, I would like to emphasize two
things. (1) That the City is not rezoning all excess freeway
parcels to Open Space. (2) That a number of these parcels were
in the former freeway right-of-way. And, a great many of them
• were not only in the former freeway right-of-way, but were also
landscaped.
The adopted Environmental Quality
Element of the General Plan calls for the I-10, the San Bernardino
Freeway, to be used as a scenic corridor through the City of West
Covina. As early as 1969, that adopted General Plan shows land-
scaping, extensive landscaping, throughout the San Bernardino
Freeway.
We feel it is consistent with both the
adopted.Specific and General Plans of the City of West Covina that
these parcels be rezoned from their current zoning designation to
the newly adopted Open Space designation. That Zone was adopted as
part,of the implementation process of the City°s Environmental
Quality Element.
At this time, I am open to any questions.
Mr. Wakefields Mr. Mayor, there is in the audience
Mr. Larry Danielson who is here repre-
senting the State,Department of
Transportation this evening. He desires to be heard with reference
to this matter.
I am sure the City Council will recall
that under date of September 11, 1975, a letter was addressed to
the City Council by the Legal Division of the Department of Trans-
portation setting forth certain objections to the Urgency Ordinance
which rezoned these same excess freeway parcels. And, this proposal
which pends before you this evening is the recordation of the
Planning Commission with reference to the permanent zoning of
the parcels in question that have been described.
I have reviewed the letter submitted
by the State. I, frankly, find that there really is no substance
to the legal issues which are presented in that former communica-
tion. It seems to me that the principles which are.applicable in
this situation are the same principles that are applicable in any
rezoning proceedings. The primary consideration, of course, is
whether or not the proposed change will serve the public interest
and is consistent with the Open Space Element of.the City®s General
Plan. If the City Council makes such finding,.then, in my opinion,
it has the authority and the jurisdiction to proceed with the
rezoning of the parcels in question.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF ZONE CHANGE
NO. 493, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.
Mayor Chappells If there anyone in the
would like to speak in
the recommendation by
City Attorney, and our Planning Commission, please
microphone,.give your name and address, and we will
you to speak.
- 15 -
audience who
opposition to
our Staff, our
step to the
certainly allow
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change, Now 93 Page Sixteen
Mr. Larry Danielson (Sworn in by City Clerk.)
Attorney, Dept. of Transp. Some weeks ago I wrote a letter to
107 S. Broadway the Council, and I guess it was
. Los Angeles, Ca. passed on to the Planning Commission.
I wasn't able to attend the Hearing
myself; one of my colleagues from the
office did come down and discussed it with the Planning Commission.
About four days after I wrote that
letter, a United States District Court in the Northern District
of California cage down with a decision, the first to my knowledge
of any of the Courts operating in the State of California (this is
Federal Court),dealing directly with the question of Open Space
Ordinances. There are a number of differences in the factual back-
grounds of the property involved. But, I think the principles are
pretty clearly set forth by District Judge, what's his name, Schnake.
Briefly, I just got this - as a matter
of fact last Friday, and yesterday was a State holiday, so I didn't
come to work. This evening I did, for the purposes of having the
City Attorney look it over and at least get the Citation of the
case so that he might get a chance to review it in depth. But, I'd
like to read a few of the comments of the Federal Judge regarding
an Open Space Ordinance adopted with respect to private property
in the City of Palo Alto.
Now, true, most of these properties
that are proposed to be zoned Open Space do belong to the State
• of California. Some of them don't. Frankly, I couldn't keep
track of the Staff presentation here because we don't have Parcel
A, B, C. etc. All I have are the designations given out in the
Notice of Hearing. So, I can't tell you with reference to the
parcel numbers which ones the State owns, and which ones are
privately owned. As a matter of fact, I think there is at least
one that is presently owned by the City of West Covina, which is
your own problem.
But, our problem deals with, as I
think the Council is advised by the letter which I wrote earlier,
on the question of evaluation. In any case, the Federal District
Judge, dealing with a similar problem - not identical, but, a
similar problem, and this is the first one that I know of dealing
with -an Open Space Ordinance, held as followsi
"Although the Ordinances suggest on
their face a basis for their enactment in the way of carrying out
State Open Space policy, the State definitions of Open Space land
cannot fairly be said to describe Plaintiff's land. In fact,
there was no basis at all for passage of Ordinances Nos. X and Y,
in the way of promoting public health and/or safety. The plain
object of the Open Space Ordinances was to achieve the same result
to the full extent possible as would have been achieved through
purchase of the land itself.
Although the Ordinances purport to
permit a variety of land uses, the same are substantially fewer
and more restricted than those available under the prior zoning.
And, none of the uses remaining has any substantial viability
and/or economic reasonability when applied to the.subject property."
- 16 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No, 493 Page Seventeen
The Court gets on to discuss the
law in the matter. "Care must be taken to distinguish between
the power of the community to zone and the power to condemn.
Both powers have their source in the authority of the community
. to act in the public interest. The nature of the public interest
is considered differently, depending upon which of the two powers
the public authority is purporting to exercise. Clearly, schools
and parks are a matter of public concern, and establishing them
in the public interest. But one's property may not be taken for
either purpose without compensation." (This was not a school and
park case, it was an example given by the Federal Judge.)
"If a parcel of property was zoned
exclusively for park purposes, or exclusively as a school play-
ground, the purported regulation would, in fact, be exercised.
Which of the powers is being used
does not necessarily appear in the form in which the community
puts its action. Indeed, the entire concept of inverse condemna-
tion arises from circumstances in which harsh regulation unduly
invades private property.'
In the present case, facts require
the conclusion that the Open Space Ordinance was not a bonified
attempt to impose limitations of the use of the property by the
Plaintiff, but rather the final step in a program designed to
acquire rights of the property for the enjoyment and use of the
.public in general. The City would have us look no further than
the language of the Ordinance in determining its validity.
• Ordinarily, a Court may not inquire into the motivation of a
legislative body in passing the legislation under consideration.
Courts may, however, appraise the nature and scope of governmental
behavior - prior history, the basis upon which the determination
was made, and any other relevant facts in determining whether the
legislation is unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory."
Its a long decision - over 40 pages.
"While the city's method of proceding
may be open to question, there can be no doubt of the desirability
of their purposes. Open spaces are rapidly disappearing. A sad
fact in this all too crowded world. But, however laudable the motive
to preserve scenic beauties, the City must act, not by subterfuge,
but by law.
California law permits Palo Alto to
exercise its right of eminent domain in all public uses authorized
by the State Legislature. The acquisition of open spaces and other
areas for public use and enjoyment is specifically authorized by
Government Codes Section 6950. California Government Code Section
69512 relating to the enactment of Open Space Zoning Ordinances
provides as follows+ 'The Legislature hereby confines and declares
that this Article is not intended, and shall not be construed, as
authorizing the City or County to exercise its power to adopt,
amend or repeal an Open Space Ordinance in a manner which will take
• or damage private property for public use -without the payment of
Just compensation therefor.'"
The Court initially found as follows.
"There has clearly been the appropriation of the valuable property
right of the Plaintiff in the present circumstance, whether the
taking be deemed a scenic easement, an. open space easement, or
something different."
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No. 493 Page Eighteen
The next question is# What really
shall be afforded? The Court found there had been an inverse
condemnation and required, and is going forward, as a matter of
fact, at the present time with the Hearing on the question of
• evaluation.
Now, as I say, there can be a lot
of distinctions made between the holding of this Federal Judge
and what might be expected in the Courts of this State. But, I
think that its a direction to look at. I think the City Council
should take a second look at the effect of these Ordinances, at
the potential consequences, financially as well as with respect
to their own problems of enforcement and what not. The City
Attorney should take a look at this decision, and,perhaps, advise
the Council on how he thinks it might effect, on if a similar
decision came from the California Courts, how it.might effect
a potential law suit between the State of California and the
City of.West Covina. We are not here inviting a law suit, but
we have in the areas - and, I counted them just as I was sitting
here waiting to be heard this evening, what the State's or the
Department's estimate to be well over $200,000. worth of property
which the,City has decided ought to be devoted only to land-
scaping or to similar non -financially rewarding uses. The
Department is not in the position at the present time to donate
these properties to the uses to which the City wants to put them.
We are willing to sell them to you; we might have to force you
to buy them.
So, my recommendation would be to
• restudy it a little bit, and not take any final action tonight.
Mayor Chappells Thank you very much for your
presentation.
Is there anyone else in the audience
who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to what
we are discussing at this time?
Dr. Russel Rohde (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
18822 East Cortez As I understand, the proposal is one
Covina, Ca. which would prohibit the residential
use or agricultural use of the
properties shown on the maps. This
would: then turn the properties from R-A to an Open Space Zoning.
My question is (1) whether or not
there might be a consideration that the adjacent property owner
of those parcels which are adjacent to a property might not be
made available to a property owner if just !(use for that land
could be found.
Now, I'd like to know what the impli-
cation of the Open Space Zone change is. Frankly, I am in favor
of what I heard proposed by the Planning Board. And, it would seem
that it would pretty much put on the back of those others than the
• property owners, and probably the City, and change to the State to
underwrite the development and maintenance of these Open Space
areas.
If you look at these maps, most of
these areas are encircled by freeways, and I can't envision
building a house out there, or cultivating it and planting a
garden as they do in some areas. I think this areas has been raped
n
U
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No. 493 Page Nineteen
somewhat by the freeway system. We have some small, cut-up
particles of land averaging some ten to twenty thousand square
feet, a half acre or less. We have been shown the slopes and the
hills, valleys and run-offs. We know what is going to happen when
the rains come. They are not developed. We were told that they
were developed before; now, they are not. And, I want to know who
is responsible for this lands who is going to culture this land;
and, who is going to provide for the water run-offs, and so forth.
Who is the owner of the land presently? Who will become the owner
or the responsible party of the land when it becomes Open Space?
I can't imagine that we are in
violation of the law by making this Open Space, which I would be
in favor of with the exception of one parcel that was shown that
looked like it might be accessible for storage area next to what
appeared to be an industrial company. The other areas look to me
unsafe for public use, unsafe exits or entries therefrom. I would
favor the change to Open Space status. I certainly wouldn't want
to build on one of these areas for numerous reasons. I think these
are well -shown by the photographs.
Mayor Chappells
Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Wakefield, do you want to answer
some of those questions at this time regarding ownership, main-
tenance, etc.
Mr. Wakefields Yes, Mr. Mayor. If I may comment .
briefly with reference to the matter
as I see it.
Initially, I should point out to the
City Council that it seems to me that there are very vital
differences between the case to which Mr. Danielson referred and
the situation which is presented here this evening with reference
to the rezoning of these particular parcels.
As Mr. Danielson had indicated, the
City Zoning Ordinance is not binding upon the State of California.
The City is not purporting to limit the use which the State itself
can make of the properties. What the State seeks to do, insofar
as the future is concerned, is to simply sell the properties into
private ownership and to secure the best possible price for the
property. I think the price which the State may receive in any
sale of the property will ultimately be effected by the use which
the purchaser can make of the property. And, admittedly, under
the Open Space Zoning provisions of our Ordinance that use is
substantially restricted. However, to the extent that the State
may desire to use the properties for any governmental purpose, it
is free to do so sofar as the City Zoning Ordinance is concerned.
The properties in question, to the
extent that they were not a part of the previously existing free-
way rights -of -way, were acquired by the State through condemnation
or purchase,and,generally speaking,are parts of larger parcels -
part being required for the freeway widening, part turning out now
to be so-called excess parcels. That is excess to the freeway needs
of the State.
- 19 -
•
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zond Change No. 493 Page Twenty
As the Planning Department Report
indicates, most, if not all of the problems, are severely
restricted both with respect to access, the size of the parcel
necessitates very limited development potential, the obvious
uses to which the properties can be put are limited by terrain
and by location.
The fact is, I think, that our
Zoning Ordinance, which is mandated by the State insofar as,
Open Space uses are concerned, defines Open Space as in part
land which is essentially unimproved and required for the
protection of the public health and safety, including the
protection and enhancement of air quality.
I think that the Council is well
aware that one of the methods that is commonly used used along
the freeways for the protection of air quality and a reduction
of the effects of noise is heavily landscaped open space. The
rezoning of these particular parcels seems to be consistent not
only.with the City°s General Plan, but also consistent with the.
dictates of our Open Space Ordinance.
This is not a case as existed in
the Palo Alto decision in which the City, over a period of years,
had negotiated for the acquisition of property and was still
prepared to acquire it. I think when those negotiations broke
down because of complex economic factors, increases in price
attributable not only to inflation but development of surrounding
areas, the,City ultimately resorted to the rezoning of the
property for Open Space purposes as a means of reducing the price
which it might ultimately have to pay for the acquisition of the
property. No such pattern, past conduct with reference to the
acquisition of the parcels in question exists here. What the
City is attempting to do, at least on the basis of the Planning
Commission's recommendations, is to see that the properties are
devoted to that use for which they are most suited and that use
which will best serve the public interest of the residents of
the City of West Covina.
Mayor Chappella Thank you Mr. Wakefield.
Is there anyone else in the audience
who would like to speak in favor or in opposition?
Councilman Tices Question. Mr. Mayor. Did we answer
the Doctor's questions that he had?
Mayor Chappel13 Doctor, did we answer your questions
to your satisfaction?
Dr. Rohde= Well, I wondered, who is the current
owner, and would there be any change
in the ownership or the.liability
of these lands if changed from R-A to Open Space, ..which I would
be in favor of.
Mr. Wakefieldi Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council,
Doctor, the representative of the State
Department of Transportation has indi-
cated that, and I think that the majority of the parcels are
currently owned by the State of Cal fornia. Some of them have
already been sold into private ownership. And, the State is in
-20-
Is
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No. 4D Page Twenty-one
the process of attempting to place the remaining parcels on the
market for sale to private individuals. The situation might be
different if the zoning were imposed after the sale. As to those
parcels which are already in private ownership, the City may be
faced with a problem of enforcing the zoning requirements. But,
I think that in the main, we would not find it difficult to do that.
I guess what I am saying is that I don't think the City has any
financial responsibility by virtue of whatever action is taken here
this evening either to the State or existing owners of those parcels.
It is true that the City has no effective means of compelling the
landscaping of the parcels either in the hands of the State, or
private ownership. Again, our jurisdiction is limited to those
parcels that are in private ownerships and,as to those,we would
have the same right to abate weeds and see that the property is
adequately maintained that we have with other vacant.properties
within the City.
Mayor Chappell: A11 right. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak in favor or in
opposition at this time? If not,
then I'll...
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I have something I want to
say, and the City Attorney has advised
me that in order to say it, I first
must ask to be excused from deliberation, and exercise my right -
not as a Councilman, but as a citizen of West Covina at the
microphone. If I may.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Shearer, you may step to the
microphone, and speak either in
favor or in opposition.
Let the record show that Councilman
Shearer.is now speaking as Citizen Shearer.
Mr. Shearer: And, I am not speaking in favor or
opposed, so do I have to be sworn in?
Mayor Chappells
Yes, you do.
Mr. Shearer: (Sworn in by City Clerk.)
Obviously, Mr. Mayor and Members of
the Council, I find myself in a bit
of a predicament here in attempting to get my thoughts across,
and the City Attorney has advised me that this is the proper way
in which to do it.
First off, I want to make one thing
very clear. I think the City of West Covina, the citizens of
West Covina, have gotten the extreme short end of the shaft from
the Department of Transportation with regard to the dealings of
excess property.
I.also recognize that,.and agree with,
the goals which the Staff and Planning Commission are attempting
• to accomplish. I have serious doubts in my mind, however, that
this approach will do it. We are desirous of open, landscaped
areas. Now, without getting into the legal questions of inverse
condemnation, etc., which I will defer to our two attorneys,
- 21 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS-- Zone Change No. 423
October, 14, 1975
Page Twenty-two
putting that aside, as Mr. Wakefield just indicated, there is
no way that the City can force, even though we may be able to
prohibit the State from selling to anyone, there is no way that
we can force the State to landscape.
What bothers me in this situation is
that if we take this approach, that we may well antagonize the
State to the point where they say "fine." They have done that
before. We see examples of it quite frequently through the'City
(I disclaim any part of that, of course) inhere the State has
said, "Well, okay, this is the law; this is what we have a right
to do. We'll go in and spray 24D, which is a very high sterilent,
and it will remain open space." I don't think that is really what
we want.
On the other hand, we may be able -
and, I say "may" with somewhat high reservation, to work with
and through Assemblyman Lancaster and Senator Richardson some
agreeable solution to this problem.
I recognize there is an immediate
problem, however, and that is to keep anything from occurring.
I am merely pointing these things
out, just in case these thoughts have not come to your mind, and
I am sure they had. Frankly, if I was going to vote on, this
matter, I wouldn't have the slightest idea at the moment because
I came here tonight thinking I would sit back and relax and
enjoy about 30 minutes or so of just brainstorming. Then, these
• ideas came,to my mind. Will this action that is recommended by
Staff and the Planning Commission enable you to accomplish the
desired goal which is nice, green, landscaped areas. Particularly,
when Caltrans has told you that there is no money to.even land-
scape.that portion inside the freeway fence. So, we already have
a major problem. You gentlemen know that the City does not have
the wherewithal to landscape, much less maintain once it is
finished. So, we have a major problem that possibly through
negotiations could be solved.
But, what concerns me, that with this
type of approach we may build up an antagonism. On the other hand,
if we don't get people's attention, then there is no, way of
negotiating. So, on one hand, I say do whatever you do with a
great deal of concern, but do something. Maybe this is the
solution. Maybe this will get the attention - obviously, it has
gotten the attention of. the Legal Division through the letter and
Mr. Danielson b-eing, here this evening. And, as the old story with
the mule and the 2 by 4 over the head - before anything can get
done, you have to get someone's attention. Sometimes bureaucracies,
of which we are all part, are just as stubborn as the old mule, and
maybe tonight we have to apply the 2 by 4 to get their attention.
So, with that, I think I will sit
down here in the audience since I have already excused myself f"
from the deliberation.
Mayor Chappell: Is there anyone else in the audience
who would like to speak either in
opposition or in favor?
22 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS - Zone _Change `No. 493
October 14, 1975
Page Twenty-three
Dr. Richard Rohde (Sworn in by City Clerk)
3049 East Cortez My concern here tonight is (1) the
West Covina, Ca. expression that the parcels in
question would have a greatly
• restricted useability in the future.
I would like a brief dissertation, if
you will, on exactly how restricted the use of these extra
properties would be. I find it difficult to believe that anyone
would buy these properties inasmuch as the description of them
suggested they are hazardous places to go to, possibly would be
in conflict with the Health and Safety Code, and the newly adopted
noise abatement programs. Certainly, if there are no other uses
to which they could be put to, then, I wonder if there isn't any
alternative but to explore the avenue that has been chosen tonight.
I question, however, whether we do
have sufficient police powers to take this land from the State
for purposes of this zoning. Thank you.
Mayor Chappell# Mr. Wakefield, do you want to comment
on that statement?
Mr. Wakefield# Mr. Mayor and Members of the City
Council, basically, our Open Space
Ordinance provides that there shall
be no buildings on land, nor shall buildings be erected or
structurally altered on land zoned for Open Space purposes except
for certain specified purposes, such as public utilities, ease-
ments, public parks, recreational uses, private golf courses,
• wild life and botanical preserves, equestrian centers, public
schools and scenic highway easements and recreational corridors.
I take it that if the Open Space Zoning is adopted for these
parcels this evening, the use of the parcels will be essentially
limited to scenic highway easements and recreational corridors.
Mayor Chappell# It should be drawn to attention also
that these are not all of the parcels
along the freeway that are bacant.
There are a number of them that will have a business user that
will have uses other than what we are attempting to do. And, they
are not in this proposals they have been excluded from this
proposal. These are basically only the lands that our Staff in
examining them have found virtually impossible to utilize by
egress and ingress and other reasons - slopes, as most of you saw
the pictures here. If you have driven around the freeway, some
of those slopes, right now I am waiting for the first rain to
come along so that part of it will be down in the streets. So,
these pieces of property were selected; they weren't just taken
at random; they weren't just taken to spite Caltrans, or any-
thing else. I think there was a lot of study and a lot of depth
went into this decision on each parcel.
I can't speak for my fellow Councilmen,
but I would say that I don't believe that we are going to get
Caltrans mad at.us because of what we are doing when other State
directives have told us that this is what we will do. In fact, if
you remember - those members of the Council who were here at the
time, the Attorney General cited West Covina for not complying with
some of the directives that the State had set down. And, if my
memory serves me correctly, this was one of them. So, we are caught
between the rock and the hard place if Caltrans.does get up on
their high horse. I don't think they will. I think our City
- 23 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No. 493 Page Twenty-four
Manager and our Staff, and myself included, have been meeting
with them along with Assemblyman Lancaster and Senator Richardson
trying to resolve our problems along the freeway. I think we'll
all take a tough approach to it, both sides, and I hope that the
compromise that comes about will be in everybody's pleasure.
But, that will come with more time, I am sure, and.a lot of money.
We are, right now, in the process of
working with Cal trans on a project which Council is being briefed
on. But, we can't go any further than that at this time because
we don't know the grounds because the City Attorney hasn't ruled
on it.
If there are no more comments at
this time, either in opposition or in favor of, then I'll call
the public portion of the Hearing closed, and we will move to
Council discussion.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, it appears to me that
really the land, from what the Staff
is showing, doesn't have much
commercial use at all. I think the State must recognize that in
those parcels, too. But, I think what we are really involved with
here is a legal technicality - whether the City has a right to take
certain action in opposition to the State. I think that, maybe, if
we discussed this, the State would probably agree that that land
• does not have any value from a commercial standpoint, and maybe it
could be used for Open Space the way it should be. I think it is
just a matter right now of City rights verses State rights.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Wakefield has ruled on that how-
ever, that we have no jurisdiction
over the State. So what we are doing
though is the best we can to comply with State directives that say,
$4you will have an Open Space Ordinance, and it will be complete and
we will approve it or disapprove it."
Councilman Tices We're darned if we do, and darned if
we don't, so...
Mayor Chappelli Well, I don't know that we are darned
if we don't, but, I think that as long
as we go about this in a manner that
shows quality and deep thought and deep investigation, we can't be
chastised too much for our approach here this evening. Although
I don't know which way we are going to go, but that would be my
opinion.
Councilman Tices Has there been any consultation with
Caltrans on those particular parcels
of land, Mr. Diaz?
Mr. Diazi Not that I am aware of until we went
through the Planning Commission
Hearing except for the discussions
which took place before I got here on how the excess freeway
parcels were going to be handled. I think they were discussed
at that time,: I don't know.
- 24 -
'Y�31
•
0
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Chang® No. 493 Page Twenty-five
Councilman Ticea I just wondered from the standpoint
that perhaps we could reach an
amiable agreement here without an
uproar.
Mr. Millers Mr. Mayor, if I may comment. I was
involved in those discussions that
Ray was referring to, and my prede-
cessors were involved before that. Since about 1970, we have
been meeting with the State Staff, Real Estate Division, trying
to resolve all of the State exr�pss freeway pare el,a. We worked
up a composite map keyed to what could be done with the
properties - whether they should be sold to adjoining owners,
combined and sold, sold independently, or just retained in State
ownership, or bought by the City for maintenance purposes, or
whatever. We have, I think, over the last several years, not
necessarily seen those properties sold the way we had tentatively
agreed to. Baymar-Garvey is a good example, the rezoning out there.
The Mardina properties - the State used 32 feet off the rear of
those properties, removed the garages, made them non -conforming.
The other parcels, in answer to the
Doctor's question, you can't believe people would buy these
properties - you can't believe what they would buyd We have
given notices to the State to include in their advertising indicating
the restrictions on property, but people still buy them. What we
would be faced with in these situations here is the people who buy
the property would come to the 'City for relief through variances
and other waivers of City standards.
These parcels here are fewer in
number than what the City had tentatively agreed with the State,
to retain as landscaped areas. We have been doing this for about
five years, and I will tell you, it is about the most frustrating
situation you would want to find yourself in. And, consequently,
we have taken this action here - to take what we feel are serious
hazards, you might say, to the public safety and health, to put
these properties into a situation that will not create a hazard
and prevent people from being burned by the acquisition of land
that cannot be developed.
Councilman Tice:
You answered my question,'Mr. Miller.
Mr. Diazs Mr. Mayor, I think I might be remiss
if I did not point out this may make
a difference in terms of Council
decision this evening) that not all of the parcels that went to
the Planning Commission are here before you this evening. There
was one parcel on Citrus Avenue, on the east side, that the
Commission voted to continue the Public Hearing on. That zone
change will be No. 493-B. They pulled it.out of the set that we
gave them. That particular parcel, if the Commission recommends
it, that zone change will be before you for Public Hearing later.
I just wanted to bring that out becauseI think I failed to bring
it out in the original Staff Report, in case it.makes any difference
in the Council decision.
Councilman Browne: I think Mr. Shearer's.:-I'll refer to
him as "Mr. Shearer" inasmuch as he
is in the audience, point should be
taken by the Council. This is relative to working out,in an amicable
sort of manner with the State, some of the problems that exist.
- 25
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS -,Zone Change No. 4U
October 14, 1975
Page Twenty-six
I would agree to this on a couple of the property sites, number
"B" on the first sheet, and number "C" on the second sheet, which
might have some possible means of development. However, in analyzing
the dissemination of the properties through the freeway right-of-way
. where we have been left with many substandard lots...
Caltrans has indicated that this is
an action on our part to prevent the sale of the property - down
zoning, which could be inverse in one respect. But, you can
consider the fact that many of the areas that were discussed tonight
were originally on the freeway right-of-way, incorporated into our
General Plan update as Open Space areas. Now, these properties
come back with an R-A (Residential -Agricultural) Zoning on them.
I feel that this is not true. The Residential -Agricultural Zoning
was on there originally when the freeways were put through our City.
And, there are Open Space factors required for landscaping; this is
called for in our General Plan. And, is within our rights as
protecting the welfare of the City. The State has demanded that we
incorporate Elements into our General Plan relative to noise, health,
and open space. This is justified in our action, I feel, with the
exception of possibly two properties, and remaining the continuity
of land as it existed before the freeway was widened.
I do not think that we are going to
create a controversy that the State is going to comeback to us.
I think.they realize that the properties are only good for certain
purposes, however, in their attempt to sell them, for which you
cannot blame them... If anybody buys them, they are going to
have difficulties coming back in for developing. Variances are
• very few and far between as far as our Planning Commission and
Council are concerned. And, if the proper zoning is placed upon
it when these people buy the property, it will probably eliminate
any of these discrepancies in the future.
As the Doctors pointed out, who is
going to maintain the property? That is a good question. It is
one I am concerned about. We are not able to get the landscaping
on the portion of the freeway that_was in the original contract.
Consequently, this will throw burges in the other areas. If these
parcels are not developed, if they are sold, the only means we
would have of protecting them, I think Mr. Shearer pointed that
out, they would come in and spray them, keep the growth down.
This will lead to erosion and compound the felony. On this I have
mixed emotions. I would like.to see this part of it resolved.
However, I feel that we are within our rights, and, based upon the
advice of the City Attorney, I think what Staff is recommending
here is justified.
Councilman Millers Mr. Mayor, one question in relation
to when the State will go to bid on
date set at this point? these excess parcels. Is there any
Mr. Millers For these parcels? No, there isn't
any particular time. We haven't
received notifications on these
properties, yet to respond. When we do, we normally have 60 days
to respond, and we do respond within that time period. And, we
do also have a Staff member present at the point of sale.
- 26 -
CITY COUNCIL October.14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No, 493 Page Twenty-seven
Councilman Millers Okay. You say 60 days. So, what I
am drawing at is the possibility of
looking at holding this over - if we
would have time to talk with Caltrans as to the future of these
. parcels, really, in regards to... well, if it ends up in the
ultimate, maintaining, maintenance and cost and factor. Would
we have a period here where we could just sort of go over some
of these issues with them, or are we running against time where
they may go to bid and we wouldn't have time?
Mr. Millers They are in the process. They are
under State mandate - another State
mandate, to sell all parcels that
are not needed for public right-of-way for freeways or other
public State highways. Consequently they are "under the gun."
They will be sending us notices shortly. In the Staff's opinion,
anyway, the sooner we can take an action to show how we feel
about these properties the better off, and give some guidance
to.the Staff for the simple reason that trying to come up with
reasonable comments (as we have done in the Staff Report here)
on each individual parcel apparently has not carried any weight
with the sale of the properties prior to this date. The comments
regarding the Baymar-Garvey properties, the Mardina properties,
whatever; the sales have gone as.scheduled even though the City
has had the chance. The City Staff has responded. And, it is
the Staff's opinion that really now it is time for the whole City
to make a comment on'how they feel these properties should be used.
Councilman Millers Okay. From my own standpoint, from
• what I have heard on both sides, I
feel there is a'realistic approach
that always has to be taken as to when you look at property -
what its land,use is best, that it can be utilized. And, from
what I have seen this evening, the parcels that I have viewed,
at least in my judgment, fall within the category of 0-S. But,
I don't at this point make it a cut and dry situation because
I do have reservations down the road, too. Continued efforts
and communications with Caltrans is of the utmost importance.
We need to continue.to work together, and in this respect, try
to resolve because money is tight on both ends.
So, if it so goes 0-S tonight, and
I really.highly encourage Staff to continue communicating and
working real close with Caltrans and try to resolve these things
down the road apiece.
Councilman Brownes Mr. Mayor, I have a question I would
like to ask Mr. Miller. I'am
sure that we are going to get into
further discussion, despite what action may be taken here tonight,
on specific property. `Should the Council decide to move and
approve the Staff recommendation tonight, should the State come
back on individual properties and prove or give a feasible method
of development on them, would it be the perrogative of the City
Council to change our decision on individual properties?
0 Mr. Millers Yes, it would be the perrogative of
the City. There would probably be
some relationship to the amendment to
the General Plan as it relates to these properties. Some decision
as to whether Or not they fall within a landscape corridor or an
urban scenic highway, things of this nature. But, it would be the
prerogative of the City Council to change it back again if there
is a combining of property to make a productive use, or something
of that. nature.
- 27 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
HEARINGS - Zone Change No. 493 Page Twenty-eight
Councilman Tice: As I said earlier, I still feel this
is a technicality, even though I
realize that the State has the final
authority overall what we do. But, it does prove one point here
this has repercussions throughout the State in other areas, I am
assuming, on whatever happens, even though they can overrule us.
It just shows whether a City can put a roadblock in their way or
not. I don't know how abiding it is. That is apparently all we
will be doing by zoning this, is putting a roadblock in their way
since they can come back and declare our decision as null and
void, I am assuming. Is that right, Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield; Not quite; Councilman Tice. I think
my comment was directed to the use
of the property by the State itself.
Our Zoning Ordinances do not bind the State of California.
Normally,they, on a voluntary basis, attempt to follow our Zoning
Ordinances. You will remember the relocation of the Department
of Motor Vehicles.
Councilman Tice: That was on a voluntary basis, though.
Mr. Wakefieldt That was on a voluntary basis. My
comment simply was that we could not
control what use the State may make
of the properties for State purposes. However, if the State elects
to sell the property into private ownership, then the private buyer
is bound by the Zoning that is applicable at that point in time.
• Mayor Chappell:. I don't know if this is right or not,
but I believe your terminology "road-
block" is certainly not the...
Councilman Tice: Poor choice of words.
Mayor Chappell: In other words, that terminology could
be misread somewhere along the line in
reading over our minutes, and things
like that. I believe we are exercising instructions...
Councilman Tice: Right.
Mayor Chappell: If we have no further discussion, is
anyone ready to try a motion at this
time? We have a recommendation that
the City Council adopt Zone Change No. 493.
Motion made. by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Mayor Chappell to approve Zone Change No. 493, and
the Categorical Exemption therefor. Motion carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Browne, Tice, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Shearer
ABSENT: None
- 28 -
40
CITY COUNCIL
Oral Commu Ications
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rev. Abraham Abrago
1564 Ralph Street
Pomona, Ca.
to Mr.Bonaparte'who is
And, they said that we
it was not zoned for a
October 14, 1975
Page Twenty-nine
We purchased a house here in West
Covina about two months ago. We
began to have religious meetings
in this home. I sent a letter to
the Planning Commission, and also
from the Special Services Department.
could not hold meetings there because
church.
So, what I would like to do is
request permission from the City Council to resume our meetings
on a temporary basis until we can relocate, move away from here.
Mayor Chappell: What is the address of your property?
Rev. Abragos 1705 S. Sunset, West Covina.
Mayor Chappell: I don't believe it is within the
prerogative of the City Council to
grant you that type of permit at
this time because we have to go through a process of Hearings
to grant that type.of permission because it is not in an area
zoned for that.
Rev. Abragos We are not thinking of building.
We are not thinking of altering the
building in any way, shape or form,
nor putting up signs of any kind. The only reason why we did
did this is because we had been in the City of Industry for 15
years, but due to the fact that the City of Industry Redevelop-
ment Plan pushed us out of there because they had to widen up
the streets, or what have you, we had to move from there.
Instead of storing all of our church furniture, we bought this
house (my wife and I) and moved the church furniture there.
The house was previously sorely neglected, so rundown that it
was almost unfit to live in. We had to spend almost $1,000, to
bring it up again, so that the Sanitation Department gave us an
okay on it. So, now all we are requesting is permission to have
these meetings on a temporary basis.
Councilman Shearers How often do you meet, and how often?
Rev. Abragos We have approximately 35 or 40 people
that meet there. We. meet. for two
hours three times a week -.Wednesday,
Friday and Sunday.
Councilman Shearers Have the neighbors complained?
Rev. Abragos They have complained, but not on
account of the noise or the traffic.
We take care of that. The only
reason why they complained was because they knew that was not
zoned for a church.
Councilman Millers What constitutes a private meeting
verses a church? Do we have anything
established? If I want to have 50
people come into my home. for a meeting, I see no reason why I
can't. Do we get to a point where numbers mean a church, or is...
- 29 -
CITY COUNCIL
Oral Communications
October 14, 1975
Page Thirty
I can lawfully meet:in my home as I please or... I am confused
here. Do we have a standard that separates where they can't.
Mr. Wakefields Mr. Mayor, Members of the City
• Council, I don't know if I can
help anybody get unconfused on
this subject. The problem boils down to a question of so-called
incidental uses. We don't have any precise standard for measuring
what is,. or what isn't, an incidental use. I think that the-
problem:presented by Rev. Agrago's request is simply that what
he is suggesting amounts to a regular and a set pattern of
meetings of a church group in a residential facility, a residentially
zoned area. And, really, the only tests that the Court has ever set
up with reference to incidental uses is whether or not it causes a
disturbance to the neighbors and whether or not it results in a
traffic congestion. In other words, I guess the test boils down
to what you can do, you can do as long as your neighbors don't
complain about it. That apparently is the situation here.
We are confronted with the situation
where the neighbors have complained, apparently, about the use.
About the only suggestion I can make,
and I don't know whether it is at all feasible, but we do have in
our Zoning Ordinance a procedure for application for Conditional
Use Permit. ,Perhaps, if Rev. Abrago were to apply for a Conditional
Use Permit on a temporary basis, that is to use the property for a
limited period of time, the Planning Commission could set the
matter for Hearing and get an expression from the neighbors with
• reference to the contemplated use and ultimately make a decision
about it.
Councilman Shearers You use the term "incidental use;'
would that indicate that if Rev.
Abrago were living in the houpe it
would make a difference? And, on
occasion had or so friends in for an activity, would that...
Mr. Wakefields I think that clearly would be an
incidental use, providing they did
not violate the Noise Ordinance or
anything else we have in the City. The line gets a little fuzzy
when the use is regular on a continuous basis. Under those
circumstances, I think, the use becomes more than incidental.
Everyresident is free, I think, to invite the church group into
his home for any kind of an activity on an occasional basis and
it would be strictly an incidental use of the property.
Councilman Shearers Just one additional.comment. I
don't want the Reverend to feel that
all he has to do is leave and file
for an Unconditional Use Permit. I don't know what the feelings
are of the present Council, but the last time we had such a
request here, it was not for this type of use - it was for even
a better" use, and that is not comparing your church with any
other church, but it was a request for actual construction and
the problem was with a substandard amount of property and the
Council at that time turned it down. So., you might want to look
into that aspect 'of it before you go to the trouble of applying
for an Unconditional Use Permit and paying the fee.
- 30 -
U
CITY COUNCIL
Oral Communications
October 14, 1975
Page Th�rty-one
Rev. Abragos We spoke in great length about this
with Mr. Diaz. We know definitely
we will not build, or even alter
the building at all. Mr. Diaz already told us that any church
in West Covina should have at least two acres to get.started.
I know also that in order to turn that building into, a church
we would also have to meet the Planning Commission's zoning
requirements. We don't want to turn that building into a church
building per se. Only to.have permission granted from the City
Council to meet there certain hours of the week on a temporary
basis until we can relocate.
Councilman Tices
How long do you consider a temporary
basis?
Rev. Abragos Well, I. think we are going to put it
directly up for sale, so we will
hopefully be out of there in six
months.
Mayor Chappell$ I would suggest you sit down with the
Staff. To me, six months.is not a
temporary length of time; it is a
long time. We would have to hear what the citizens in your
community said about the parking, etc. Sit down with Planning
and see what they can recommend to you, and I will check with
them and relay the information to the City Council.
THE MAYOR CALLED A RECESS AT 9:35 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
9$50 P.M.
CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION N0. 5127 The City Attorney presenteds
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO
OPERATE ITS HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAY-
MENT PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, AND APPROVING APPLICATION OF
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8 OF TITLE II,
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 19740 AS AMENDED, TO THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Browne to waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution. Motion carried.
Mayor Chappells I think it should be brought out
that this relates to forty existing
multiple -family units for the elderly,
and ten single-family or multiple units for families. So, we are
not taking on the project for the whole City. It is limited in its
scope and it is aimed primarily at the elderly as one of our plans
and has co me :up in one of our Study Sessions on this agreement.
Motion made by
seconded by Councilman Browne to adopt said
carried on roll call vote as followss
AYES: Shearer,
Chappell
NOESs None
ABSENT$ None
Councilman Tice,
Resolution. Motion
Miller, Browne, Tice,
- 31 -
CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
October 14, 1975
Page Thirty-two
Mr. Wakefield, In connection with this matter,
there is a proposed agreement
between the City and the Housing
Authority of the County of Los Angeles. The action of the
• Council would be to approve the agreement as proposed and
authorize the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the City. Again,
the agreement limits the authority of the Housing Authority to
forty units for the elderly and ten units for the family.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to approve the agreement between
the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles and to
authorize the Mayor to execute same on behalf of the City.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows,
AYES# Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES, None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION N0. 5128 The City Attorney presented,
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE CLASS SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CLASS OF MANPOWER CONSORTIUM
DIRECTOR, ESTABLISHING THE SALARY
RANGE THEREFOR, AND SPECIFYING THE
CLASS AS EXEMPT.
• Mr. Wakefield, This is an item which has been on
the Agenda on a previous occasion.
It was originally disapproved by
the Personnel Board, I think due to a misunderstanding of what
the position was really designed to accomplish. It is back tonight
with a Staff recommendation that the Resolution be adopted.
Mayor Chappell, The Personnel Board is making that
recommendation, or just the Staff?
Mr. Wakefield, I think just the Staff.
Councilman Tice: The Personnel Board is generally
opposed to the creation of the
Consortium Director because it is
involved with the CETA I Grant. The feeling of the Personnel
Board is that, as expressed by a'majority of the Board, they
don't want to take any more Federal money. And, they felt that
the City should not be involved in training of the private sector.
They have a valid point in this area. I think, if I recall right,
at the time there were four people on the Board (one vacancy) and
all four voted not to approve the Consortium in principle.
Mayor Chappell, We should get into some discussion
in that area; I have some comments
to make. Does anyone else have
• any comments?
Councilman Tice= I have some real questions of
whether the cities should get into
the area of training of the private
sector. I am not so much opposed when we train people within our
City workforce, but I am questioning whether we should get into
the area of private instruction to assist people. There are many
J.
- 32 -
CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
October 14, 1975
Page Thirty-three
agencies in the County and the Federal government, and so forth,
that are already in existence that handle a good portion of this.
So, I don't know what purpose it serves for us to get involved in
the training aspect of the private sector.
• Councilman Shearer: First, on the recommendation of the
Personnel Board - I admire the
Personnel Board; I admire the individuals
on the -Personnel Board. However, I think that the recommendation
that they made was not with regard to class specification, which is
technically the function of the Board, but, rather on.the concept
or the philosophy of this particular program, which as private
citizens, of course, they have their role and their obligation to
make their wishes known. So,, I don't consider a rejection on the
part of the Board a negative recommendation as a statement that
the proposed class specifications are inadequate. I believe, in
looking at the minutes, that they spent very little time in that
particular subject.
On the question of the role of the
City, it is my understanding that the Federal government has made
money available to be used in this area - for manpower training,
retraining, upgrading of abilities, etc. on the part of the un-
employed or underemployed. The County has the role of sort of
the umbrella agency; they dole this money -out to whoever may apply.
And, it is my understanding that the amount of money that we are
talking about is earmarked for this Consortium. If we do not take
it, it does not revert back to the Federal government for use in
some other program. Rather, it is allotted by the County to some
• other group within this particular area with no guarantee that
citizens of West Covina will have any part at all. It is my under-
standing that,there are private agencies in the surrounding areas
that possibly.would come into play. I know of none - I was told of
none, that are local (within the City of West Covina).
I, too, have some quarrels with the
concept of increased Federal spending, which means increased
Federal taxes, whether the money comes from Washington or not, it
originally comes from your pocket and my pocket. But, this concept
that this money is going to be spent in this area regardless of
whether the Council takes positive action or not, it is merely
going to be spent by someone else. I think in order to guarantee
our citizens an opportunity to be retrained, or uptrained, or
whatever it may be, made more employable, that we should move
ahead and confirm our previous action on this matter.
Councilman Browne= I agree with the statements of
Councilman Shearer. I participated
in a program similar to this at one
time, and I have very second thoughts about the implementation of
these programs. However, as Councilman Shearer stated, the
Federal government has allocated this money and to afford the
citizens of our community the benefit of obtaining an on-the-job
training program might or might not be our responsibility, but
we are up to the point of making a decision of approving the
• specifications of the Directorship.
I have a great concern about the
administration. I understand that the four cities involved
have individually accepted certain phases of responsibility.
- 33 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
City Attorpey Page Thirty-four
I want to make sure that the City does not deviate from the every-
day way of their job life and that any time spent would be reim-
bursed in a dollar amount back into the City's funds. I would
like to see a guideline set up by whoever is to sit in with the
Board of Directors, or whoever governs the Administrator, to make
sure that justification is given to all four cities involved.
This will be a tremendous job in itself.
It has its merits and it has its
demerits. I think, in essence, when you take the people off of
the welfare rolls and place them into a training program, some-
times they see more income coming from welfare and will chuck
the training program. (Gave examples of this from his own
experience.) Sometimes this works fairly, sometimes this works
unfairly, with individual businesses. These are some of the
things we want to look into. Again, it is all based on the
administration of the program.
Councilman Millers It mentions in here a Project
Board consisting of a Mayor
or designatee from each city.
At this particular point, will this become a burden or a problem
as far as another obligation to be involved in?
Mayor Chappell= We have designated our Mayor, who-
ever it might be. It is just
another responsibility that you have
as part of being a Councilman, or the Mayor, if you are sitting in
that seat.
• Councilman Miller: In respect to the philosophy again.
You have to go back. Is there a
need? Basically, there is a need
for this program. It is a short duration type of a program to
meet an emergency type of need. The guidelines give a lot of
flexibility, so the City is not unduly obligated; we can pull
out at the end of the year with no problem. The money is still
forthcoming, so that gives us some say-so.
I do agree that we do have to look
critically at these types of programs to make sure that they meet
the needs and what we are trying to accomplish here in the City
of West Covina. I feel under this particular program, it won't
be a detriment, but a plus in helping the unemployment situation.
Councilman Tices I will probably be the lone abstaining
vote on this one, but I don't feel
that local government can be all
things to all people. I don't think that we should be involved in
the training areal that is the main thing. There are too many
agencies all set up for it. So, we don't get the money to do it
with. I am sure there are other sources. I do not vote for this
Consortium as such, and it is truly against, the concept, not the
Director class.speeifications, just the concept.
• Mayor Chappell] What you said is probably a true'
statement. There are other agencies
set up to do this. If they are in
the West Covina area, or the Covina area, I am certainly not aware
of them other than the Adult Education programs that are going on.
41
E
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
City Attorney Page Thirty-five
Funds have been set up to train
some 450 citizens of our community and the other three cities.
We can take that money and'with good local control set up this
project and train these citizens who presently may be out of
work or may be upgraded in their training. We would be working
for the people of West Covina. I would venture to say that.these
funds would go to East Los Angeles, Watts, or some other area
similar to that if we don't take advantage of it. If we don't
set up a good program here, and if we don't train some of our
citizens to receive better jobs or jobs period, then I'll say
get out of it.. We will have our Mayor (whoever he may be) on
the Board, observing what is happening and if it isn't going
properly, then we can get out of it. ft is a sad commentary
when someone who wants to work can't work, and, if we can help
450 people in our four cities find a job, or better job, then
I say this comes first. I feel that. as a Council we have
already approved this plan, and we are now asked to approve the
make up of the citizens that will run it.
I think that we should reiterate
our stand that local government may be able to do this better.
We keep talking about wanting the opportunity for local control
and local decision making. We have it here, and we are saying,
"Let someone else do it." I think that is where many of our
problems.stem from - let somebody else do it, and when they
don't do it right, we have the opportunity to complain. I
would like to see if we can do it. I hope that we are able to
find the proper Staff for operating this project. We have the
leadership of the four Mayors to make sure it works. .
Councilman Tice=
Mayor Chappell:
the Council as well as
look at this thing. My
and a group of citizens
that it .does the things
doing tonight.
I hope we don't train them to build
buggies or something like that= I
hope it is something useful.
Well, the day that I sit on a
Commission and vote for somebody
to build buggies, I'll resign from
that Commission. So, that is where I
responsibility and three other Mayors
had better watch this closely and see
that we are attempting and talking about
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Shearer to waive further reading of the
body of said Resolution. Motion carried, 4 affirmative, 1 opposed
(Councilman Tice).
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Shearer to adopt said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Chappell
NOES: Tice
ABSENT: None
- 35 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
City Attorney Page Thirty-six
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Mr. Wakefield: There is submitted
WEST COVINA POLICE ASSOC. to the Council this evening a
Memorandum of Understanding arrived
at between the representative of the
• City, the City Manager, and the West Covina Police Association's
representatives. Staff recommendation is that the Memorandum be
received and filed and that the Council adopt a proposed Resolution
which implements those parts of the Memorandum that are capable of
immediate implementation such as the salary adjustment which will
be effective for the first payroll period in J u1y,1975, the
cleaning allowance, and certain rights of appeal. The other items
which relate primarily to the Agent Plan will need to be .imple-
mented at a later date when the specifications for the class can
be approved and submitted to the Council for action. The same
thing is true with respect to the increase in the proposed premium
payments for additional life insurance. The City will be soliciting
for quotations for the additional insurance.
The Memorandum, in its technical
aspects, is similar to the Memoranda that have been agreed upon
in the past. The basic Memorandum provides for a salary adjust-
ment for an average increase of 5 and one-half percent for Police
Cadets, Police Officers, Sargeants,Lieutenants and Captains within
the Police Department. There is some increase in the cleaning
allowance.for the cleaning of uniforms. That amount is increased
to.$75.00 per year, and may be paid out on a semi-monthly basis
(that also to be effective the first payroll period in July, 1975.)
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
• seconded by Councilman Tice to receive and file the Memorandum
of Understanding with the West Covina Police Association. Motion
carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 5129 The City Attorney presenteds
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1277 TO FIX
THE COMPENSATION AND THE BENEFITS
PAYABLE TO AND TO AMEND THE PERSONNEL
RULES RELATING TO POLICE CADETS,
POLICE OFFICERS, SERGEANTS, LIEUTENANTS
AND CAPTAINS WITHIN THE POLICE DE-
PARTMENT
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of.said Resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt said Resolution. Motion
carried on roll call vote.as follows:
AYES:. Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice
Chappell.
• NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 36 -
CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO
CETA TITLE VI AGREEMENT
WITH THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES
employees who are employed
October 14, 1975
Page Thirty-seven
Mr. Wakefield: This is an extension
of the CETA VI Agreement between the
County of Los Angeles and the City
of West Covina. It extends the CETA
VI program until March 31, 1976. It
provides for the transfer of certain
under Title II to the Title VI program.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to approve amendment to the CETA Title
VI Agreement with the County of Los Angeles. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF CETA TITLE I Mr. Wakefields The Title I program
IN -SCHOOL PROJECT AGREE- is a training program utilizing
MENT WITH THE WEST COVINA students in an after school program
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT of creating. The program would be
extended until June 30, 1976.
Councilman Tice= Do we have any agreements with any
of the other school districts in the
same light?
Mr. Wakefield$ This Agreement provides, in effect,
that West Covina Unified School
District is the District Center for
the coordination of the program between all school districts
within the West Covina City limits.
Councilman Millers Where does the liability factor lie?
Does that lie within the jurisdiction
of the School District?
Mr. Wakefields. It would come under our policy to
the extent that they are actually
assigned and working in a City
facility.
Councilman Millers
That doesn't have to be stated in
the contract?
Mr. Wakefields No sir. That is provided for in the
basic Agreement between the County
and the City of West Covina.
Mr. Aiassas This is one of our most successful
programs. Some of the girls that
have come from the schools now have
full time jobs as secretaries and clerk=stenos.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to approve the CETA Title I In -
School Project Agreement with the West Covina Unified.School
District and to authorize the Mayor to execute said Agreement.
Motion carried.
- 37 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
City Attorney Page Thirty-eight
STATE PROVISIONS ON Mr. Wakefields The Personnel Board
DISABILITY RETIREMENT has recommended that the City Council
OF CITY EMPLOYEES take such steps as may be appropriate
• to urge a revision in the present law
with respect to Disability Retirement
and Disability Benefits for safety employees. The recommendation
from the Board iss "That the City attempt through the League of
California Cities and other appropriate organizations to secure
some modification of the present Disability Retirement Benefits
and the associated problems that come from the existing statutory
procedure."
Councilman Millers I would appreciate if the Council
would consider referring this back
to Staff for study and recommends-
tions as to what we are talking about. I am not clear as to what
we are talking about. At this point, I am clear as to what we
are going to these different organizations for. Exactly what are
we striving for, what we are trying to accomplish, you might say.
Mayor Chappells When we prepare the letter then,
before it goes out we will see that
each Councilman receives a copy so
they know what we are sending to the League, and to the legislators.
Councilman Tices Having sat with the Personnel Board,
I think underlying this whole
recommendation was the fact that
the individuals who are placed on Long Term Disability, I believe,
• receive a full year's salary.
Mr. Aiassas Yes, they do in public safety.
Councilman Tices That was bothering them more than
anything else, if I recall right.
Mr. Aiassas There is also another element. Our
State Comp has now reached a point
of over $600,000. We just have to
draw a line someplace.
Councilman Tices Councilman Miller has a good point.
We should be more specific in any
recommendations.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to refer this item back to Staff
for specific recommendations. Motion carried.
ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT WITH Mr. Wakefields This item is a
FINANCIAL KINETICS CORP. proposed addendum to the present
RE DEFERRED COMPENSATION. Deferred Compensation Plan that
has been approved between the City
and Financial Kinetics Corporation.
• The addendum limits the types of investments that.can be made
through Financial.Kineties Corporation to life insurance and annuity
contracts.
-38-
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
City Attorney Page Thirty-nine
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to approve the addendum to the
contract with Financial Kinetics Corporation re Deferred
Compensation. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH Mr. Wakefield: This is a proposed
BALDWIN PARK POLICE DEPT. Agreement between the City of Baldwin
TO USE PISTOL RANGE Park and the City of West Covina
for the use of the West Covina Pistol
Range by the Baldwin Park Police
Department, with the City of Baldwin Park to pay a minimum sum
of $76.20 per month that representing the cost of providing a
Range Master for ten hours of use of the range per month. If
additional hours are required by Baldwin Park, the City of
Baldwin Park will pay an additional $7.62 per hour for each hour
of additional time.
Mr. Aiassa: I would like to recommend to the
Council that we hold this over until
our next meeting because I believe
there is a little more to it than just the paying of the Range
Master. I think we have upkeep and maintenance. I would like
to talk with the City Manager of Baldwin Park.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Tice to hold over this matter untilthe
next regular meeting of the City Council. Motion carried.
REPORT ON CITY OF WEST
. COVINA V. THE DEPT. OF
TRANSPORTATION, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO.
135908.
Mr. Wakefield: Since the last meeting
of the Council, we have had a Hearing
in the'Superior Court on the City of
West Covina's action against the
Department of Transportation with
reference to the landscaping of the
San Bernardino Freeway.
In the City's Complaint, there were
two Causes of Action. (1) To declare the rights of the City and
State under the existing freeway contracts and the landscaping
contract. (2) For injunction to enjoin the California Highway
Commission from appropriating money to the Southern California
Rapid Transit District for rapid transit planning until the
Highway Commission had budgeted the funds for the State's share
of landscaping of the freeway.
The Court denied the City's request
for injunction, but authorized the City to proceed with the
Cause of Action for declaratory relief. We are now in the process
of filing the documents with the Court required to set that Cause
for trial. We will make a motion to the Court for an early trial
to see if that item cannot be disposed of as rapidly as possible.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Browne to receive and file the report.
Motion carried.
- 39 -
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
City Attorney Page Forty
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF Mr. Wakefield+ The Planning Director
NOTIFICATION RE ZONE is requesting that the Council waive
CHANGE NO. 494 the requirement for notification to
individual property owners within
300 feet of proposed Zone Change No.
494. This Zone Change deals with
City parks. The only change proposed is to change the zoning
applicable to City parks from the P-B Zone to the Open Space `Lone.
I think this request is consistent with the needs of the City and
the requirements of our Zoning Ordinance. The change of zone would
not, in any event, affect any of the adjoining properties.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Browne to waive notification re Zone
Change No. 494. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF PERMIT AGREEMENT Mr. Wakefield= The West Covina
TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Police Department has had an on -
FOR USE OF SPACE AT THE WEST going program in which the County
COVINA POLICE DEPARTMENT Probation Department has provided
FACILITY a Probation Officer to work in the
West Covina Police Department facility
for the purpose of providing counseling
and guidance with juvenile offenders. The County has now requested
that the City execute a Permit Agreement with the County which will
simply formalize the existing arrangement. It provides that the
City will provide space for a Probation Officer in the City Jail
facility without cost to the County.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
• seconded by Councilman Shearer to approve a Permit Agreement to
the County of Los Angeles for use of space at the West Covina
Police Department facility. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN Mr. Wakefield: I am sure that the
REQUESTED WITH RESPECT TO Council will recall that this matter
CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY was heard by the Council and the
MR. HUR-5T,. proposed General Plan amendment was
denied. The Plan amendment was to
change the zoning of the property from Medium -Density Residential
to Low -Density Residential. Staff is simply asking for concurrence
of the Council for re -Notice of the matter and to set it for a new
Hearing before the Planning Commission with ultimate recommendation
to the Council.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Browne to approve the request.
Councilman Millers Did I understand that this.is just
to allow this gentleman to go back
and reopen the case? At this point,
this is not our accepting the change?
Mr. Wakefields No commitment at all. This is the
authority to re -Notice the Hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Motion carried, 4 in favor, 1 in
opposition (Councilman Miller).
Councilman Millers I would like to clarify that. I feel
that zone is a proper zone at the
moment.
Mayor Chappelli Well, I don't believe that my vote
indicates that it isn't. But people
-40-
11
CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1975
City Attorney Page Forty-one
have the right to ask for this and we as a Council must allow
them that right and give them d'their day" or forever more wish
we had.
Councilman Miller& It is not intended to deny him his
right. It is just basically that
we have heard the case and there are
other ways of implementing this, if he so desires.
AT 10&30 P.M. THE MAYOR -RECESSED THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AND THE
PARKING AUTHORITY MEETING. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10a40 P.M.
CITY MANAGER
AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MGR. Mayor Chappell& The City Manager
TO ATTEND CONFERENCE ON has requested authorization to
MASTER PLANNING FOR FIRE attend the conference on Master
PROTECTION. Planning for Community Fire Protection
on October 28-30, 1975 in Orlando,
Florida. The expenses will be charged
to the United States Department of Commerce.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Shearer to authorize,the City Manager to
attend the conference on Master Planning for Fire Protection.
Councilman Tice& Is someone from the Fire Department
going to be attending with you?
Mr. Aiassa&
Covina to take one of our key
(One key man from each city.)
REQUEST - WEST COVINA HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENT BODY TO USE
LA FRANCE ANTIQUE FIRE
ENGINE
Yes. This afternoon Capt. Cove
called and said that he is going
to allow Azusa, Covina and West
men with us at government expense.
The Council received a request from
the West Covina High School Student
Body to use the La France antique
fire engine for homecoming activities
during half-time of football game
on October 31, 1975.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by.Councilman Browne to approve the request. Motion
carried on roll call vote as fllowsa
AYES& Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice
Chappell
NOESa None
ABSENT& None
SAN GABRIEL-VALLEY Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
HUMANE SOCIETY REPORT seconded by Councilman Browne to
receive and file.
Mayor Chappell& I have another complaint on the
Humane Society which you might
check into, Mr. Aiassa. She called
- 41 -
CITY COUNCIL
City Manager
October 14, 1975
Page Forty-two
me on Monday, a holiday, and said she found three dogs.running
loose and was not able to reach anybody at the Humane Society.
I think we should once again look
• into this because I was under the impression that they were
open holidays.
Motion carried to receive and file.
Councilman Shearer: Re the Humane Society. This is a
frequent complaint. Councilman Tice
brought it upi we thought we had a
solution. I am going to suggest that Mr. Aiassa or some of your
Staff, if my colleagues concur, periodically on weekends and on
holidays give the Society a call and see first-hand. Make a
spot check for a couple of months to confirm these allegations
and see where we stand.
The Council concurred with the
suggestion.
Councilman Browner It seems that I inherited the bating
of the coyote traps placed in the
hills and I would like to resign that
position. The fact is I think they had the traps in the wrong
place. I had a report from a neighbor that their small dog has
disappeared, we don't know whether by the panther or the coyotes.
I wish that you would get in touch with the Humane Society and
tell them that they had better direct their efforts in a more
• practical way.
Mr. Aiassao The Police Department is also getting
involved. We had the heliocopter out
in the hills. We have the entire
County's support with the panther.
REQUEST FOR EXPENDITURE/ Mr. O'Connor= The Youth Commission
YOUTH ADVISORY GROUP met in an Adjourned Regular Meeting
coincidental with the Council meeting.
Because of late correspondence
received, this item could not appear on the regular Agenda. A.
conference is to be held in Los Angeles on October 18, 1975t
entitled "We the People"and two members of the Commission would
like to.attend. They request Council approval for the expenditure
of $15.00 which was included in their budget.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to approve the request.. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows]
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REVENUE SHARING STATUS Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
REPORT seconded by.Councilman Browne to
receive and file the Revenue Sharing
Status Report. Motion carried.
-42-
CITY COUNCIL
City Clerk
CITY CLERK
RECEIPT OF PUBLICATION
OF NOTICE OF INTENTION
• TO CIRCULATE PETITION
RE ADDITIONAL PENSION
BENEFITS FOR FIREMEN
•
October 14, 1975
Page Forty-three
(Published September 26, 1975.
May circulate 21 days after date of
publication)
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Mayor Chappell to receive
and file. Motion carried.
Councilman Shearers Does the Council have the obligation
to place on the (assuming the success
of the petition) ballot exactly what
is their statement, or my we... What I am getting at is that I
am assuming that the petition will not carry with it the fact that
if this particular widow's benefit goes into effect that it will
cost considerable money to the City. Is that correct that there
is no indication of the cost?
Mr. Wakefield: Assuming now that the initiative
petition contains an initiative
proposal which may be initiated by
the people, the Council does have the obligation to either adopt
the proposal as submitted in the petition or submit it to the
people in the form in which it is proposed by the initiative
petition. However, the City Council may submit alternative
proposals to the voters at the same election which would be
alternative to the initiative proposal.
Councilman Shearers Could one of those alternatives
include the raising of the taxes
to fund it?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes.
Mayor Chappells What happens if one of them passes
and the other one doesn't?
Mr. Wakefields The two propositions would have to.be
tied together on the ballot. So, if
the revenue measure, for example,
failed then the other one would fail also.
I have not seen the initiative myself,
and should not comment on it, although I have indicated publicly
previously in discussions with reference to this same sort of
proposition that the City Council provides retirement priviledges
for many employees pursuant to a contract entered into between
the City and the public employees' retirement system. Under.State
law that particular statute can only be amended in a particular
way. It has been my feeling that those optional benefits that
are available under that contract are not appropriate subjects
for initiative. However, I have not seen the specific proposal.;
it is something that we will need to look into.
- 43 -
s
•
•
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor's Reports
MAYOR'S REPORTS
October 14, 1975
Page Forty-four
PROCLAMATIONS There being no Council objection,
Mayor Chappell proclaimed "Escrow
Week" October 19-25, 1975.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE. Council Committee assignments will
REPRESENTATIVES not change for the next three months
due to the fact that everyone has
not had a chance to participate.as
much as they would like to.
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/
COMMENTS None.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Miller to
approve. Demands totaling $941,312.75
as listed on Demand Sheets UCB 52030, 52302, and Gas Tax, Bank
of America 351, 355, and 13255. Motion carried on roll call vote
as follows'
AYES: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice,
Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to
adjourn this meeting at 10950 P.M.
to the next regular meeting, Monday,
October 27, 1975 at 7830 P.M. Motion
carried.
- 44 -