07-26-1976 - Regular Meeting - Minutes11
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
JULY 26, 1976
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by.Mayor Nevin Browne in the West Covina Council
Chambers.. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Ken
Chappell; the invocation was given by the Reverend Larry Cole
of the Community Presbyterian Church.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Browne; Councilmen: Miller,
Chappell, Shearer, Tice
Others Present: Leonard Eliot, Acting City Manager
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
Michael Miller, Public Services Director
Ramon Diaz, Planning Director
Harry Thomas, City Engineer
Ross Bonham, Administrative Asst.
Renee Futter, Administrative Aide
Gus Salazar, Redevelopment Coordinator
Chet. Yoshizaki, Asst. Redev., Coord.
Patrick Rossetti, Assessment Engineer
Bill Freemon, Staff Reporter, S.G:V.D.T.
Eric Cohen, Staff Reporter, Sentinel
PRESENTATION Mayor Browne presented a Resolution of
Commendation to Coach John Skolinas
commending the Cal Poly Pomona Baseball
Team.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 12, 1976 The following corrections were made to
the minutes of July 12, 1976:
Page 5, paragraph 2 should read:
"...involved. This is something..."
Page 54, Resolution No. 5280'should
read: " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA,.CALIFORNIA, DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITY
TREASURER FOR THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF PETTY CASH FUND IN
SAID CITY."
t Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Chappell to approve the minutes of July 12,
1976, as corrected.. Motion carried.
r
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Consent Calendar Page Two
CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Browne explained the procedure of
the Consent Calendar and asked if there
were comments on any of the following
• items:
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) SECURITY PACIFIC
NATIONAL BANK
b) MR. & MRS. R. VITAL
1918 E. GEMINI ST.
WEST COVINA, CA.
c) UNITED WAY
621 S. VIRGIL AVE.
LOS ANGELES, CA.
d) LEUKEMIA SOCIETY OF
AMERICA, INC..
e) CITY OF EL MONTE
f) CITY OF ROSEMEAD
2. PLANNING COMMISSION
a) SUMMARY OF ACTION
3. YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
a) MINUTES
MINUTES
Copy of periodic report required
to be filed by Trustee re
Southwest Water Company.
(Receive and file)
Expressing appreciation for
Council decision on the Gemini
Street problem in the jamara
Tract. (Receive and file)
Request for charity solicitation
license from September 15 to
December 15, 1976. (Approved
in prior years. Recommend approval)
Request for charity solicitation
license -from September 5 to
Ocotober 5, 1976. (Approved in
prior years. Recommend approval)
Requesting support for Councilman
Cluff as a candidate for the
expected vacancy on the RTD
Corridor D Board. (Refer to
Mayor's Agenda Item G-2)
Requesting support for Councilman
Marvin J. Cichy for the expected
vacancy on the. RTD Corridor D
Board. (Refer to Mayor's Agenda
Item G-2)
July
21,
1976.
(Accept and
file)
June
24,
1976.
(Receive and
file)
July
8,
1976.
(Receive and
file)
- 2 -
CITY COUNCIL
Consent Calendar
4. ABC APPLICATION
July 26, 1976
Page Three
Chief of Police recommends NO PROTEST
a) Daniel Ramirez dba LIQUOR MANOR
Barbara Jean Ramirez 943 South Glendora Avenue
• 1632 Via Alegra
San Dimas, Ca.
b) The Akron dba THE AKRON
5120 Melrose 215 North Citrus Street
Los Angeles, Ca.
5. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH THE CITY -CLERK
a) HAROLD J. RUPP
534 Tocino Drive
Duarte, Ca.
b) G. WILLIAM SHAEFFER)
ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF
ROBERT CONATSER, DARWIN
MULLINS, MAURICE RIPPER-
GER & KENNETH E. BUTLER
Re damaged tire caused by piece
of steel reinforcing along
curb at corner of Garvey and
Lang Avenues on June.21, 1976.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Re additional salary benefits.
(Deny and refer to City Attorney)
c) ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. Re traffic accident on March 19,
ON BEHALF OF 1976 at Amar Road and Azusa
. LAURETTA FRANKLIN Avenue. (Deny and refer to
City Attorney)
6. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES
a) REVIEW ACTION July 20, 1976. (Accept and file)
(Items I, II, V withdrawn.`Refer-to Pages 4 & 5)
7. CITY TREASURER
a) REPORT FOR JUNE, 1976 (Receive and file)
b) ANNUAL REPORT Annual Report of interest
earnings for fiscal year 1975-76.
(Receive and file)
Councilman Shearer requested that items
I and II of the Traffic Committee Minutes be removed from the Consent
Calendar. Mayor Browne requested that item V of the.Traffic
Committee Minutes be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to approve the Consent Calendar
• items with the exception of items 6 (1) and (II) and (V..). Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice,
Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL
Consent Calendar
July 26, 1976
Page Four
ITEM CC-6.(I) & .(TI) Councilman Shearer: The recommendation
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE of the Traffic Committee on items I and
II is in response to a request for
• additional "No Parking" adjacent to
some driveways on North Garvey, and
to switch the parking to the south side of the street which is
adjacent to the Freeway. Since anyone parking on the south
side of the street is going to want to walk to the other side
of the street, will there be any problems with jay -walking?
Mr. Wakefield: I am familiar with the area. I think
there is no'particular liability
problem with the restriction of park-
ing to the south side of the street. It is true that the persons
who park there will necessarily have to cross the street to get
to their destination, but from a liability standpoint, I think
there is no increase to the liability to the City.
Councilman Shearer: Has the recommendation been reviewed
with the merchants in the area?
Mr. Thomas: This proposal was suggested by'one
of the property owners in the area.
We have discussed it with.other
merchants; there was also a representative at the Traffic
• Committee meeting (representing the Gas House) and he was in
agreement. There is currently a problem in the area with curb.
parking; the proposal will increase curb parking while decreasing
several safety hazards that exist in the area.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,,.
seconded by Councilman Chappell to accept and file Item CC-6.(I)
and (II). Motion carried.
ITEM CC-61(V) Mayor Browne: I have received several
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE phone calls on this item,which was
MINUTES originally requested by Mrs. Mayfield,
regarding the left turn signal on
Garvey Avenue and Azusa Avenue. There
seems to be some concern in the area related to the determination
given by the Traffic Committee in their recommendation that the
request be denied at this time. (1) There are left turn signaliz-
ations up and down Azusa Avenue which seems to conflict with`the
peak traffic load reports. Did you actually take traffic counts
at that signal?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, these are actual manual traffic
counts that were taken.during the peak
• traffic period. What is shown in the
tabulation is the highest four consecutive fifteen minute periods
that were counted. We feel this is representative of the
conditions that typically exist at this intersection.
- 4 -
i Y
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Consent Calendar Page Five
Mayor Browne: Are these counts any different than
are at Merced, Vine and Cameron?
• Mr. Thomas: We have not done any manual counting
there recently. At the time that
those areas were provided with left
turn phasing, the criteria were somewhat different than they
are now, mainly the conflict product, which is mentioned here
at 100,000; at that time, under the State guideline, it was
50,000. This location would meet the old criteria, but it does
not meet the present criteria.
The City did request that left turn
phasing be installed at this intersection in 1971 as part of
the freeway widening. State denied it at that time on the basis
that their projections indicated it would not meet the criteria
for left turn phasing. In the event this location did meet that
criteria, it would be a basis of requesting the State to install
left turn phasing at their cost under their policy of accommodat-
ing changes in traffic movements that occur from freeway widening
that occur within five years of the opening day of the freeway.
At the present time, this intersection
is maintained by the State though the cost of the maintenance.is
wholly borne by the City. Any modifications that would be
approved would have to.be borne by the City if we could not
• convince the State that they are needed.
Mayor Browne: Are the current signals so equipped
so that they could be modified without
having to change the entire signal to
incorporate left turn phasing?
Mr. Thomas: I doubt that there are any specific
accommodations for left turn phasing
at the intersection. The usual
situation with the type of equipment they have is to add minor
maneuver controllers, underground conduit to accommodate the
wiring needed, and. installation of poles in the median islands.
So, there is a substantial expense involved, possibly as high as
$20,000.
Mayor Browne: To satisfy the concerns of the persons
inquiring into your rationale in this
determination, could you come up with
some cost figures.and explanation of the situation with the State?,
Mr. Thomas': Yes.
Motion made by Mayor Browne, seconded by
Councilman Miller to accept and file Item 6 (5). Motion carried..
- 5 -
. f
1
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
General Agenda Items Page Six
Award of Bids
GENERAL AGENDA ITEMS
AWARD OF BIDS
PROJECT NO. BP-76003 HOLT AVENUE BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT
OVER ESTEP WASH
Location: Holt Avenue, west of Grand
Avenue.
Bids were received in the office of
the City Clerk up to 10:00 A.M., on Wednesday, July 21, 1976,
and thereafter publicly opened and read. Review Engineer's
Report. Hold Over to August 9, 1976.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to Hold Over this matter until the
regular meeting of the City Council, August 9, 1976. Motion
carried.
BID NO. 76-90 FURNISHING MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR
AIR CONDITIONING/HEATING
Bids were received in the Office of
the Purchasing Agent up to 10:00 A.M., on Wednesday, July 14,
1976, and thereafter publicly opened and read. Review
Engineer's Report. Award bid and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute maintenance agreement.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Chappell that the City Council award
Bid No, 76-90 to furnish air conditioning/heating maintenance
to Western States Air Conditioning Company in the amount of
$9,000.00 annually, and authorize the City Clerk and the Mayor
to execute maintenance agreement. Motion carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC WORKS
TRACT NO. 26283 ACCEPT GRADING WORK - COVINGTON BROTHERS
Location: Woodside Village, Amar Road
near Temple Avenue.
Accept grading work performed by
Williams Engineering and authorize release of Safeco Insurance
Company of.America Faithful Performance Bond No. 2584330 in
the amount of $140,385. (Staff recommends acceptance.
• Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to accept grading work performed by
Williams Engineering and authorize release of Safeco Insurance
Company of America Faithful Performance Bond No. 2584330 in the
amount of $140,385. Motion carried.
- 6 -
f
•
CITY COUNCIL. July 26, 1976
General Agenda Items Page Seven
Public Works
TRACT NO. 26290 APPROVE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP -
COVINGTON BROTHERS
Location: Northerly of the inter-
section of Temple Avenue and Amar Road.
Council reviewed City Engineer's report..
RESOLUTION NO. 5282 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING FINAL MAP.OF TRACT NO. 26290
AND ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUB-
DIVIDER AND SURETY BONDS TO SECURE THE
SAME.
Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded
by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of -the body of said
resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded
by Councilman Miller to adopt Resolution No. 5282. Motion carried
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TRACT NO. 32719. APPROVE FINAL.SUBDIVISION MAP -
BATTAGLIA ASSOCIATES
Location: Northeasterly corner of
Orange Avenue and Franciscuito Avenue.
Council reviewed City Engineer s report.
RESOLUTION NO. 5283 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 32719
AND ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE'SUB-
DIVIDER AND SURETY BONDS TO SECURE THE
SAME,
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Shearer to waive further reading of the
body of said resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Shearer to adopt Resolution No. 5283.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 7 -
•
•
•
CITY COUNCIL
General Agenda Items
Public Works
July 26, 1976
Page Eight
TRACT NO. 30233 ACCEPT GRANT DEED - JOHN R. FITZGERALD
Location: Adjacent to Holt Avenue,
westerly of Grand Avenue.
Council reviewed City Engineer's report.
RESOLUTION NO. 5284 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY JOHN
R. FITZGERALD, AND DIRECTING THE
RECORDATION THEREOF.
Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded
by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of.the body of said
resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded
by Councilman Miller to adopt Resolution No. 5284. Motion carried
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
THE VILLAS ACCEPT CORPORATION GRANT DEED -
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Location: Westerly of Citrus Street,
southerly of Montezuma Way.
Council reviewed City Engineer s report.
RESOLUTION NO. 5285 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING CORPORATION GRANT DEED
EXECUTED BY SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, AND DIRECTING THE
RECORDATION THEREOF.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of said resolution.
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Chappell to adopt. Resolution No..5285.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
General Agenda Items Page Nine
Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 5286 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
• ACCEPTING CORPORATION GRANT DEED
EXECUTED BY SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, AND DIRECTING THE
RECORDATION THEREOF.
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Chappell to waive further reading of
the body of said resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Chappell to adopt Resolution Noo 5286.
Motion carried on roll.call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1307 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
• THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING PART 4 TO CHAPTER 3 OF ARTICLE
VI OF, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 4117,
.4118, 4119 and 4119.1 OF THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
REGULATIONS OF GAMES OF SKILL AND
SCIENCE.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of said ordinance. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt Ordinance No. 1307.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell,..Shearer;
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE NO. 1308 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
• THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTION .31.18 OF THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC,CONTROL DEVICES.
- 9 -
G
CITY COUNCIL Jury 26, 1976
City Attorney Page Ten
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 Chappell to adopt Ordinance No. 1308.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE NO. 1309 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA.
AMENDING SECTIONS 2321, 2322, 2331 AND
2405 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Shearer to waive further reading of the
body of said ordinance. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
• seconded by Councilman Shearer to adopt Ordinance No. 1309.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne
NOES: Miller
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
REVISING AND RECODIFYINGTHE PROVISIONS
THEREOF REGULATING SIGNS.THROUGH ZONING
(Amendment No. 135).
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to waive further reading of the body
of said ordinance. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to introduce said ordinance. Motion
carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 5287 The City Attorney presented;
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING HILLSIDE MODIFICATION NO. 5.
Location: West of Citrus Street,
south of South Hills Country Club,
east of Sandy Hill Drive.
OW110
CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
1
July 26, 1976
Page Eleven
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 Resolution No. 5287.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
WOODSIDE VILLAGE MAIN- Location: Generally east of Shadow
TENANCE DISTRICT NO. 5 Oak Drive, south of Amar Road, east
of Azusa Avenue, northerly of Gemini
Street; and west of Azusa Avenue,
north of Amar.Road, east of Lark Ellen
Avenue.
Council reviewed Engineer's report.
Set for hearing on this. date for
protests by Resolution No. 5262 adopted June 28, 1976.
Motion made by.Councilman Shearer,
. seconded by Councilman Tice to receive and file Affidavits of
Publication, Posting and Mailing. Motion carried,
Mr. Thomas presented slides of the
areas.that are currently maintained by assessment districts in
Woodside Village, and reviewed the Staff Report with the Council.
Staff recommended consolidation of
Maintenance Districts I and II, which had been established under
the Improvement Act of 1911, into a benefit assessment district
(Maintenance District No.5.) established pursuant to the 1972
Landscaping and Lighting Act.
Mayor Browne: Madam City Clerk, have you received any
written protests or objections to the
formation of Maintenance District No. 5?
Mrs. Preston: No, I have not.
Mayor Browne: I understand that we have a petition
to be presented by Mrs. Pam Nelson.
Please come forward (we will open the
!' Public Hearing on this matter) and present the petition to. our
City Attorney for approval.
i
0
•
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twelve
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mrs. P. Nelson (Presented the petition to the Council
2817 Glenhurst P1. and the City Attorney.)
West Covina, Ca. Mrs. Nelson was sworn in by the City Clerk..
Mayor Browne: How many parcels are represented?
Mrs. Nelson: There are 515 signatures.
Mayor Browne: 515 signatures or parcels?
Mrs. Nelson: 515 signatures.
Mrs. Nelson:
What is 50 percent of the people?
Mr. Wakefield: It is 50 percent of the area; not.
50 percent..of the residents or home-
owners. It is estimated.that.there
are 800 parcels involved in this area, 50 percent of which would
be approximately 400 parcels.
Mrs. Nelson: So, when you asked me if the signatures
represented parcels, two signatures
would be taken as one parcel?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct, if husband and wife
each signed, residing in the same
household.
Mrs. Nelson: Was that figure proposed out of
Maintenance District No. 5, or
Maintenance District No. 1, as it
belongs 1?
Mr. Wakefield: It was proposed out of. Maintenance
District No. 5 as it is proposed.
Mrs. Nelson: That is Maintenance District Nos. 1
and 2 and all of the new homes?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes.
Mrs. Nelson: I would like to have the people in the
audience who are protesting with me
show their hands so that you know how
many are in the audience.
their hands.)
(A sizeable number of persons raised
- 12 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Thirteen
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
All of these homeowners are here
to protest becoming a benefit district. It has been over a
year, and.little has been done. You only have one thing in
40 mind after a year, and that is to still make us a benefit
district.
I was sent a letter by the City
Manager dated August 11, 1975 requesting that I read the '72,Act;
that is the benefit district.
There have been a few things going on
that we do not like. (1) We did not hear what happened to our
subcommittee that Council ordered in September of '75 so that
we could come up with a solution with the homeowners. We never
heard. About a month ago, we called City Hall and asked what-
ever happened. They told us there was going to be a meeting on
the 14th of July. I was told on the phone about the meeting and
I was told by a neighbor. I understand you did have mailings
notifying people of the meeting; I did not receive one.
Mayor Browne: May I ask at this time for Staff to
discuss the mailings.
Mr. Miller: The addresses used for the mailing
were from the water billing list.
To the best of our knowledge we
• notified everyone in District No. I and District No. 2.
Mrs. Nelson: I do believe I get a water bill,,but
I did not get a notice.
Mayor Browne: Were these mailed out separate from
the water bills?
Mr. Miller: Yes, they were.
Mrs. Nelson: At that meeting nothing was resolved
except the fact that we were going to
be combined with District No. 2 (we
are District No. 1), and that we were going to be made a benefit
district. I asked the parties there how they could do that with-
out notifying us, and I found out two or three days after that
meeting that this Hearing was going to be held. You posted your
Notice of Improvements for this over your Notice of Improvements
for the lighting. No one in the City read those Notice of
Improvements because like in your new Tamara homes, everyone
is moving and approving because they are putting in land and
they assume that is what you.mean; they do not know that you
are talking about a benefit district.
At that meeting they wanted us to
come under the '72 Act, and they showed us figures. So, here
we go again. The residents here tonight are in protest of
losing the say-so in our District. Also, the right to vote
whether we would like our taxes raised or,not. We do not wish
- 13 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Fourteen
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
Council to have the say-so on whether to raise our taxes or not,
at will or when you see fit for the cost of living or whatever.
We feel we do need improvements, but
do not feel it will cost as much as the Staff says. We would
like a chance to have our vote on whether all of the homeowners
involved would like to pay the higher taxes or not. I am
referring to District No. 1. From the meeting on the 14th, I
gathered that District No. 2 does not wish to be with District
No. 1, nor does District No. I wish to be with District No. 2.
You are throwing District No. 2, which has nice green slopes,
into our District to make them pay for us, which is like what
was happening with Glenhurst in Woodside. But, we are all
Woodside. We would like to do this the democratic way; that is
a vote by the people, not the vote of the Council or Staff.
We have tried to work with the Council
and the Staff, and only got one answer - a benefit district.
Last year you gave me three options: (1) stay as we are, (2)'have
an election, or (3) benefit district. At the meeting of the 14th.,
they gave us three options: (1) stay as we are, (2) have an
election, or (3) benefit.district. But, they threw benefit
district at us. Here we are tonight fighting to stay out of a
benefit district. For a year, I have been telling you that we
. do not have a choice. There are people who care, and,we do:not
want a benefit district.
.Mayor Browne: The Hearing is not over;.we have not,
made a decision as yet.
Mrs. Nelson: Even on the Agenda tonight, you refer
to Maintenance District No. 1 not as
Maintenance District No. 1; you refer
to.it as Woodside Village, Maintenance District No. 5, which in
my mind means that you have made up your mind.
If I am incorrect, correct me.
Maintenance District No. 5 is No. 1 and No. 2 combined into'a
benefit district.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, that is correct.
Mrs. Nelson: So, in the Agenda, we are referred to
as Maintenance District No. 5.
Councilman Shearer: I think that is getting a little (I do
not mean to be disrespectful) "picky."
• That is what the Hearing is about.
It is to determine whether or not we form Maintenance District
No. 5. I do not know how else it could be titled, unless you
want it to read "Whether Maintenance District No. l and No. 2
should be combined into No. 5." I would have no objection; it
is a technicality.
- 14 -
0
J
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Fifteen
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
Mrs. Nelson: I do not have the newspaper clipping
with me that you advertised this
• Hearing in, but does it state that
No. 1 and No. 2 may be combined into No. 5, or does it talk
about District No. 5?
Mayor Browne: I did not read the statement.
Mr. Thomas: I do not have the clipping, but we
could read the resolution.
Councilman Shearer: The fact remains that we are talking
about forming Maintenance District No. 5.
•
Mr. Wakefield: Under the Tree Planting and Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972, the first
step in the procedure for the imple-
mentation of the statute and the ultimate formation.or rejection
of a proposal to form a district is the adoption of a resolution
of intention. That resolution of intention was adopted some '
four weeks ago by the City Council declaring its intention to set
a Hearing for this evening for the purpose of considering the
formation of the Tree Planting and Landscaping and Lighting Act
in .that district denominated in the Agenda and on the resolution
as Woodside Village Maintenance District No. 5. The area
proposed to be included in District No. 5 is described in that
resolution and includes the area that is currently included in
Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2. So, what is before us this
evening is the Public Hearing for the purpose of considering
whether or not to form the district designated as Maintenance
District No. 5.
Mrs. Nelson:
with the residents
notified?
Mayor Browne:
Mrs. Nelson:
Yes, but after we stood here last year
and voiced our opinion, and after you
gave Staff.the order to follow through
and form a committee, why were we never
Please continue with your presentation;
we will look into that.
I have finished my half. Mr. Seymour
would like to speak.
Mr. K. Seymour (Sworn in by City Clerk)
1724 Oakridge Circle The homeowners of Woodside Village
West Covina, Ca. appreciate what the Council and Staff
have done. They have spent a lot of
time and money on developing figures and putting statistics
together. Don't get the idea that we are completely negative.
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Sixteen
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
Re the petition and the 515 signatures
• that we have gathered, because of time and manpower limitations
these were only gathered from Maintenance District No. 1. We
did not include any of the Tamara Tract or District No. 2. We
felt that as homeowners, and as individuals, each member of the
home should have the right to voice their opinion. Both members
did not have to sign the petition, but did so as a voice as to
what they felt was the right alternative to choose.
There are really two points that I
would like to make. (1) We are talking about two problems, not
one - the level of maintenance, quality of maintenance, and the
cost. There is quite a disparity between what was originally
in Maintenance District No. 1 and what we have in those areas
today, as far as the quality or level of maintenance. We
realize that cost enters the picture and creates a problem as
far as manpower goes. Mr. Miller says that steps are being
taken now alleviate some.of the manpower problems that exists in
the area to get the proper work done in the common areas. Costs
are not the only thing, the people who live next.to these common
areas and look at them every day are upset as to the quality.
We feel that there are other alterna-
tives that have not yet been explored fully; i.e. outside
•. contractors. We feel that maybe if an outside contractor was
given the opportunity to maintain common areas, the level of
maintenance might improve. We would like to see some exploration
into the cost and feasibility of this. Another idea. to discuss
would be not to accept any new common areas until the developer
completely abandons the development. Most developers use these
common areas as selling points, and note how they look when they
are originally installed. But, they do not say anything about
how they may look five years later. By not accepting a common
area until a developer is completely finished with a particular
development, it can increase the total revenues available for
keeping up the current common areas, and keep the new common
areas fully developed until such time that the City feels that.
they can do it right.
We do not feel that the benefit district
would -truly be a benefit to everybody. We hope that Staff and this
Council would take into consideration that maybe not everything
has been explored yet; there are other alternatives than this,
benefit district.
Mr. W. Cumms (Sworn in by City Clerk)
• West Covina, Ca. I would like to Join in what Mr. Seymour
has suggested. It seems to me that there
are certain criticisms of this proposal that this Council ought to
take into consideration.
- 16 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Seventeen
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
I notice in the proposal, and it is
• rather significant to me, that at no time were the residents
of the area advised that there was a requirement for written
protests. The notices that went out suggested a Public Hearing.
Our understanding is that a Public Hearing is an oral presenta-
tion.
Mayor Browne: All Public Hearings are oral. However,
there being persons who live in the area
who are unable to be present at the
Public Hearing, have the option of.writing protest letters.
Mr. Cumms: That was not indicated in the letter
that was sent out, and..it would have
given more people an opportunity to
.express their views.
As I read the resolution, it seems
to me that there are two basis for it: (1) public interest and
convenience, and (2) more than local or ordinary benefit. It
seems to me that nowhere in the resolution or in the discussion
has there been any statement to that effect.
As you know, this is selective taxation.
• You are selecting a particular group of people and increasing their
taxes. I hope that the implications of this are not lost on the
members of the City Council. This, to me, seems to be what the
Senate Bill was intended to prevent. You are doing by indirection
what is not permitted directly. It is discriminatory, as well,
against the residents of Woodside.Village.
I think that we oughtto look into
other areas and see if the same sort of action is going to be
taken by the City Council. If there are proposals, for example,
in the South Hills area. My research so far does not indicate
this where you gentlemen are residents. In this respect, there
can be the suggestion of discrimination.
Councilman Tice I am not a resident of the South Hills
area.
Mr. Cumms:, I was not looking in your direction.
I would suggest that the best way to
proceed is to join with what Mr. Seymour said, that is to post-
pone your, action this evening.and to permit the residents to come
• up with somealternative proposals.
I also share his view that'I do not
want you to think that we are totally negative. We appreciate
the job that our Council is doing; we respect the effort and the
time that you have been putting into this job. We know that it
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Eighteen
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
is a big headache;you have to listen to disgruntled taxpayers.
• So, we are not being in any sense negative, or trying to condemn
you. But, we would suggest that there might be other alternatives
which we would consider appropriate for an area such as this.
Mr. D. Benson (Sworn in by City Clerk)
1327 Fairgrove I would like to speak in two capacities -
West Covina, Ca. one as a homeowner in Maintenance
District No. 2, and the second as a
member of the Board of Directors for
the Homeowners Association for the condominium complex known as
Woodside's Townhomes No. 1, Inc. There are three points that
I would like to.make, and I hope they fall on welcome ears. In
my discussion with the Staff, it seems as though my subjects
are consistent with their apparent direction to look for
creative solutions to the problems that are at hand.
I would like to register my protest
in that I did not have a chance to sign the petition against'
the arbitrary consolidation of Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and
2 into one Maintenance District. I feel that the problems and
maintenance of the two are considerably different and.should be
separate.
Having read some of the material
furnished by the Finance Department of the City, it appears to
me that the City Engineer has proposed a budget estimate of
approximately $2,000/year/acre for the five acres described as
Maintenance District No. 2. Those five acres were probably
donated to the City in some part of the arrangements made with
the developer in order that he might have the permission of the
City to develop that area. I would like to assume that this
was done so that the City could maintain some green areas and
keep the density of population from being as bad as it could be.
It appears, from that assumption, that the City has found the
responsibility of those five acres in excess of what has been
manageable. I come to that conclusion because it appears that
the monies collected by the City for the maintenance of
Districts Nos. l and 2 have been spent in the majority for
District No. 1, and not District No. 2. I develop that con-
clusion from the accounting of the City for the period ending
May 31st. There appears to be an excess of monies allocated to
that District (No. 2) and District No. 1 may be in the red.
I, personally, do not have a solution.
I would like to propose one; I would like the Council to take it
under advisement. I would like to ask the Council to direct Staff
to investigate if, in fact, the Council expects to pay more for
the maintenance of District No. 2 than the rate currently paid by
comparable organizations. To that extent, I would like to
indicate not just city governments, and their attempts to reduce
costs through private contractors, but also homeowner associations
which have the same problems. I have found in my position that
- 18 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings. Page Nineteen
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
the expenses which my association incurs in maintenance of
adjacent areas, which are basically level, that it has cost
isus less than $2,000/year/acre. I would suspect that the City
could maintain the areas under its responsibility for less
than what we pay.
The second thing I would like to
request Council to direct Staff to do is to investigate if,
in fact, Woodside Townhomes No. 1, Inc. might be allowed to
maintain the five acres itself. As a consequence, this will
reduce the tax liability to the homeowners to nothing. We
appreciate that there are a good many questions that this may
raise. The homeowners would no longer be able to use that for
a tax write-off. But, if we can reduce the load to the home-
owner by a significant amount, I think it is a viable alternative
to the City and the homeowners in question.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilman Tice: It seems that we have several
alternatives that could be carried out.
One is to keep things the way they
• are and just give the same level of maintenance, which may not be
very much. Or, possibly an alternative that we have not explored
whereby one or two homeowners groups (if they are strong) would
form their own maintenance district to take care of those slopes
and the rest of the area. They would prorate their own costs on
that if they feel they can get it cheaper with a contracting
service. Or, we could explore the possibility of a contracting
service. I do not think there would be that much difference to
maintain it in a first class condition. Or, we could form the
District as has been proposed and get it in first class shape
and keep it that way.
Looking at the petition here and just
"eye -balling" it, I would estimate that between 275 and 325
parcels are represented; that is getting pretty close to the.
400 (50 percent) signatures required.
We have had a couple of meetings; we
had some last year.and one this year and we still have not
resolved anything. I think the only resolving we are going to
do is with dollars to fix this up.
• My own feeling is that right now I
would just as soon leave it the way it is for the time being.
If the homeowners and homeowners groups want to come up with
some suggestions, I think we ought to take them under considera-
tion. At the same time when we leave it the way it is, we will
just provide the level of service that the funding calls for.
.Heretofore, we have funded part of this out of our General Fund,,
- 19 -
CITY COUNCIL �J,,ly 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty
Woodside Village - 1
Maintenance District No. 5 '
which is not quite right because that area does benefit the
property owners, not the City as a whole, such as a median
• strip.
So, I would like to leave it the way
it is until the property owners can come up with some suggestions
that are acceptable to them, and to provide that level of
service permitted by the funding available.
Councilman Miller: I feel that a maintenance district
needs to be self supporting; that is
very important. Given the facts
that have been stated here tonight, I concur with Councilman
Tice. I feel we should leave it as is.
True, sometime back it was proposed
by Council that a subcommittee be formed. I do not know what
has happened since then. I would think this would be one of 'the
logical routes to go - form that subcommittee, come up with
alternative ideas, and then go forward.
At this point I would concur to leave
it as it is.
• Councilman Chappell: It would take four votes to pass on
this tonight if we are near the
required 400 signatures.
. A year ago the homeowners and home-
owner associations came in complaining about the quality of the
maintenance, planting and lack of maintenance in,the area. This
was a solution to rectify that. There is going to.be no solution
that we are going to come up with that will not cost us more
money than we are now spending. SB-90, in its wisdom, froze
everything but inflation. There is not a person here who could
run their home with freezing of the costs a couple of years ago
or more; the City is no different - we have costs of materials,
costs of labor, etc. So, we do have to look around and skirt the
issue, so to speak, to continue to run the community. Just last
meeting we passed a Maintenance District for the City of West
Covina to which all of us up here will start to pay on in our
taxes; it is an additional cost for maintaining of landscaping.
So, we are not excluding ourselves.. The dollar figure is not
comparable to what we are talking about here, this evening, but
we have the problem with SB-90 freezing everything but inflation.
• If the citizens in Woodside are happy
to leave the landscaping the way it has been done, I say let's
let.them keep it that way. If they want to work out on the areas
20 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty-one
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
themselves and improve the areas around their homes, that will
last about two or three times and then their camper, their boat
or their home in the mountains, etc. will draw their time away
from that and it will be right back to where it is now.
I would be very willing to have them
come up with some solutions to improve what they have been
complaining about for sometime. It will not cost less than what
we are spending right now, but it will cost more. If we could
have a solution that would cost less, I would be all in favor
of it.
It appears that we do not have the
vote even if we wanted to this evening. This will wait one
more year. We are getting ready to establish tax rates. We
will not be able to do anything in that area for another full
year, if we do not pass on this this evening.
So, we are "between the rock and the
hard place" in attempting to improve the areas that'we would
like to see maintained in a better manner.
I am ready to go along with'my two
colleagues who have just spoken and say that I will vote to hold
• this off until next year so that our citizens will have an
opportunity to meet, and give us their opinions and ideas of
how.we can maintain the paseos and other open spaces in the area
that we are not now maintaining properly.
Councilman Shearer: It sounds as thought the majority
has spoken. In a way I am pleased
and in a way I am disappointed. As
Councilman Chappell put it, we are 1°between the rock and the
hard place." It is a very difficult situation that we find
ourselves in. We could go back and talk for several hours
about how this all got started. Most of the people in the
audience were not around at the time, and do not know the back-
ground. There were a number of mistakes made and unfortunately
with these kinds of mistakes, they do not go away. If you make
a mistake and build an Edsel, pretty soon you can kind of hide
it, but unfortunately some of the mistakes that were made in the
development of Woodside Village were made and.will stay with us,
no matter what we do this.evening, no matter how long we postpone
the inevitable.
Mr. Cumms said this was selective
taxation. I agree with him 100 percent. Leaving Districts Nos.
• land 2 the way they are is also selective taxation because the
only people who will be paying it will be the homeowners in the
particular Districts. I do not see anything terribly sinister
about that aspect. We recognized that going into this. We have
selective taxation throughout - we have to pay taxes for unified
school districts, people that are only within the.districts pay
taxes to those districts; sanitation district, the flood control
- 21 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty-two
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
district, etc. So, the concept of selective taxation is not
. new and I do not think is something sinister.
It bothers me, though, to say we
should let it stay the way it is. In looking over the signatures
on this petition, I do not believe that 50 percent of the District
has protested. But, be that as it may. Council can, in its
wisdom, accept one person who wants to protest and vote the
District down legally.
If we accept the reduced maintenance,
if we accept the concept that Maintenance Districts Nos. Land
2 are to be self-sufficient, they are not generating sufficient
money for what they have cost the,City in the way of salaries,
equipment or fringe benefits over the past few years. Up until
this current fiscal year, these two Districts have been subsi-
dized by a fairly heavy percentage out of General Funds against
the better judgment of the Council but because we had at the ,
time no better way to go. In 1972 or 1973, the Council loaned
the Districts $15,000 so that the rate would not have to be
raised higher than $0.75. So, the City has, out of.General Funds,
been subsidizing these Districts which is, I think, unfair to the
citizens who have received no benefit whatsoever.
The concept of these common areas was
adopted to enable the project to be developed using certain
standards that were lower than the City Code standards; i.e. lot
sizes. This enabled developers to keep the prices lower. I am
not saying this to justify what has happened, but to help people
understand what transpired and why we find ourselves in the
situation that we are in today.
Staff is already looking into the
possibility of contract maintenance. This may be a solution, but
it may not be an alternate to a benefit district; it may be a way
to reduce the cost below what we are presently maintaining; but
it may not answer the question of whether we have adequate funds.
Rather than take action on this this
evening, I would like to recommend that the matter.be held over.
We have until when, Mr. Wakefield, to set the District?
Mr. Wakefield: I think Mr. Rossetti has had some
discussions with the County Auditor
about the time within which the assess-
ment diagram and roll needs to be filed. My.understanding is
• that it is required to be filed.by the first of August.
Mr. Rossetti: It was required to be filed by the
first of July; we.were able to get
an extension until the first of August.
- 22 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty-three
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
Councilman Shearer: Can that be filed and then held in
• abeyance, and then decide "which side
of the fence to jump on later?"
Mr, Rossetti: You can enforce the assessment, and
then make any change you want. But,
that will be enforced for one year.
The problem is that no.matter what
we do, we are going to have to move from an ad valorem assessment
into what is called "lump sum."
If we wish to enforce the assessment
tonight, I do not think we have a majority on the petition although
I would have to check the petition signatures by area, then
meetings could be held with the property owners and any solution
could be applied next year.
Councilman Shearer: Would the work that you have done be
completely lost next year if we find
ourselves in a similar situation a
year from now?
Mr. Rossetti: No, I have put it on benefits received.
• From the input we have had (I think
Staff has received one bid) costs are
running pretty close to what we estimated for this particular
District. If you want to keep this assessment, I have made it
on the basis of dollars per person depending on the ratio. Next
year I would still have the same basic assessment, except that
it might be up or down in the total amount. The problem is that
these people have been used to paying $60.00 per year and they
are going to have to go up to $160.00; there is no other way to
do it. If they can come up with a solution that will drop the
rates below what they are paying now, I will be glad to hear.it
because it will sure help me in my business.
There is one other thing I would like
to explain. District No. 1 and District No. 2 are separate.
For the purpose of administrative purposes only are they combined
into one No. 5. Each one stands on its own feet as far as the
cost of maintenance and incidental expenses. They are two
separate Districts financially and one does not help the other.
Combination of them is for the purpose of filing with the County,
otherwise they would incur additional costs of $2,00'0 or $3,000,
so it is an administration savings. The level of maintenance in
• each should be the same.
Mr. Wakefield: I think the problem here lies in the
fact that when the Resolution of
Intention was adopted and notice of
this Hearing was given, reference was made to the proposed assess-
ments as prepared by the Assessment Engineer on file in the City.
- 23 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty-four
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
Engineer's office. These assessments have been prepared on an
individual lot basis. Each individual property owner could have
• gone to the City Engineer's office and found out prior to the
date of this Hearing what the assessment would be on his individual
parcel of land. If.we confirm the formation of the.District this
evening, we in effect confirm the assessments as already prepared
and on file. To change it would in effect destroy the intent of
this Hearing because people who are not here tonight might have
very well filed a protest had there been a different assessment
proposed for their individual parcels of property.
The Council must either act to estab-
lish the District this evening or abandon the proceedings to be
reinitiated at sometime prior to this time next year.
Councilman Shearer: It always becomes a problem in govern-
ment, I think, as to whether elected
officials are to completely concede
to the wishes of the.people, or are there.times when it becomes
necessary to "bite the bullet." It becomes difficult.
What bothers me is that we (everybody)
have a huge investment in this area, and to not maintain those
adequately may well result in an unreplaceable loss of a
• considerable amount of dollars. Once the lawns are dead, you
cannot go back and water them and they will become alive again.
•
On the other hand, the people in the
area are the ones who will suffer the loss, and they have
spoken this evening. I have to assume that they realize when
they say, "We do not want this.District. We do not want the
Council to be able to raise our taxes." that they recognize
there is a price that has to be paid. That price is going to be
even further deterioration of the areas that they are sometimes
now complaining about.
I think in this case I will agree
with my three colleagues to let the people have their way, and
see what we can manage this coming year. Maybe next year things
will be better, maybe worse. So, I will agree, recognizing that
this Council, a few weeks ago, took action to make the Lighting
and Landscaping District fully self-supporting, and that we will
no longer take several thousand dollars out of the General Fund
to help subsidize Districts Nos. 1 and 2. That means that the
monies that are collected this year will have to pay for some
things that the. Districts did not have to pay for this year and
that will mean less water, less fertilizer and less manpower.
Councilman Tice: Since this is a public maintenance
district, what problems would we
encounter if the homeowners formed
their own maintenance district?
- 24 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty-five
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
Mr. Wakefield: The homeowners or residents of a,
• particular area do not have a legisla-
tive prerogative to form a district
themselves. The formation of a district is a prerogative of a
city. It becomes a public entity with the authority to either
tax or levy assessments, as the case may be. If the existing
Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 or 2 were to be abandoned, then the
homeowners in the area could voluntarily undertake the maintenance
of the common areas, but there would be no complusion to do so.
The probability is that when the members of the homeowners
association find out how much it will cost in addition to what
they are presently paying for the maintenance of the common areas,
they would soon lose interest in the maintenance of the common
areas.
Councilman Tice: They would deteriorate further then
than what they have in the last year
or so because of costs, etc.
•
Councilman Shearer: With all due respect to the City
Attorney, that is speculation on his
part, and also on our part. Is it
legally possible, though, that the City could do that if we so
chose? Even on a trial basis, could we turnover the maintenance
to a homeowners association?
Mr. Wakefield: The City could contract with a home-
owners association in Districts Nos.
1 or 2 for the maintenance of the
open space areas within the current maintenance district.
Councilman Tice: Is your homeowners group an incorporated
group?
Mr. Seymour: Our group comprises 240 courtyard homes
throughout the Bren development. We are
a legal entity -,state chartered and
incorporated. `
Councilman Tice: Mrs. Nelson, do you have a homeowners
association?
Mrs. Nelson: We are just homeowners, not.covered by
any of the groups in Woodside.
Councilman Tice: Would you be willing to explore the
possibility of a project maintenance
district?
Mrs. Nelson: Not to the extent that I would join the
Woodside Homeowners because of their
rules and regulations.
- 25 -
•
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty-six
Woodside Village -
MaintenanceDistrict No. 5
Mayor Browne: I quite agree with the comments made
by all of my colleagues. We are
"between the rock and the hard place"
and I would like to find the "soft spot" in this instance.
However, we have a situation that was brought upon us, and we
have to be the mediators.in a sense. Last year, it is true,
people came before us requesting additional maintenance and
planting in a given area which was left in a natural state. I
think that is what opened up this pandora's box. The Council
did direct Staff to form a committee with the one group. How-
ever, we have had four people speak before us tonight, and each
one of them had some logic in what they had to say. Hopefully
along with it, they might be able to come up with some solutions.
I think the consensus among the Council
is unanimous that we are'not going to take any action in forming
this District tonight. However, we are still going to have the
problem. I think it is indicated here that there are concerned
people that will take the time to do -some research on their own.
I would propose at this time that the four people who have
spoken tonight, if they so wish to volunteer, sit on a committee,
as representatives of the Districts Nos. l and 2, with Staff and
we will instruct Staff to follow through this time to get input
before next year rolls around. The Committee and Staff should
explore alternatives and avenues of approach so that, hopefully,
we might be able to alleviate the situation to some degree.
It bothers me to think that we have
a new area being.built up in Maintenance District No. 1, and
we are $20,000 a year insufficient at this rate. With an
additional $20,000, we will be some $40,000 in the red at the
end of this next year.
I would say that as long as.we have
a petition with 515 signatures on it out of Maintenance District
No. 1 only, that the people have spoken out and we are responsive
to them. Hopefully we can resolve the problem with the
Committee of four people and any other citizens with constructive
viewpoints, and the Staff and perhaps a Council delegate, without
having to place a mandatory assessment on the Districts. Believe
me, we do not want to raise taxes one bit, however, I think you
have to recognize the situation that we are in.
Councilman Chappell: We are not going to have a $40,000
deficit because we are not going to
spend the money; we are going to
have $40,000 less maintenance. I do not know if anyone has
looked at their water bill lately. We pay the same bill for
maintaining these areas as our citizens do.. Our water bills
have gone up considerably. So, look forward to getting far
less in this next year than you have been getting. I hope that
the groups who have come here to oppose this tonight, those who
have worked hard to get the signatures to have this project
- 26 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty=seven
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
turned down, will start working equally as hard in the direction
of coming up with a solution because we are not going to be able
• to maintain, plant or water those slopes even as much as we did
last year.
If I had my choice I would vote to
put Maintenance District No. 5 into operation, but we are elected
by the community and we are here to respect their wishes. I
would venture to say that of the 515 who signed this, there will
probably be about 500 who wish they hadn't signed this petition
about a year from tonight. But, so be it. Council has gone on
record that you are in for a real bad year down there as far as
maintenance goes. We hope that by the time that we come to this
project next year that we have a solution to keep that area.in
shape and improve it like we thought we would be able to do
this year had we passed Maintenance District No. 5 this evening.
Councilman Shearer: Another thing I would like to point
out is that one of the employees
currently working in Maintenance
District No. 1 is a CETA employee; that is sort of a free ride.
His salary, benefits, etc. have not been coming out of.the
District, nor out of the General Fund of the City, but out of
the CETA money that comes from the Federal government. We
• have no guarantee that that funding will last past January 1,
1977. So, if the CETA program is. stopped, there.goes something
else.
Councilman Tice: To the four individuals who have .
spoken, I do hope that, if a solution,
is arrived at, you will be the
messengers to the rest of the people who you will represent.
Mayor Browne: I would also suggest that in your
meetings you take the individual
assessments by lot, review that,
compare it with the existing rates, and use that as a comparative
basis.
Mr. Wakefield, we have a petition here.
In your judgment, would that constitute a majority protest?
Mr. Wakefield: If it is the desire of the City Council
to abandon the proceedings, no
specific action will be made with
reference to the protests. From my quick look at the petition,
I am of the opinion that there is less than a majority protest
• filed. But, I would simply recommend to the Council that you
receive and file the protests, and that a motion be made to
abandon the proceedings for formation of Woodside Village Main-
tenance District No. 5.
- 27 -
t
k'
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
Public Hearings Page Twenty-eight
Woodside Village -
Maintenance District No. 5
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to receive and file the petition
of protest. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to abandon the proceedings for the
formation of Woodside Village Maintenance District No. 5.
Motion carried.
MAYOR BROWNE CALLED A RECESS AT 9:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL
RECONVENED AT 9:50 P.M.
1975-76 WEED AND RUBBISH Location: Throughout the City.
ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT
HEARING OF PROTESTS
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman. Miller to
receive and file Affidavit of Posting. Motion carried.
Mr. Thomas re.vigwed the Staff Report
with the City Council. (Hearing of protests set for this date
pursuant to City Council Resolutions Nos. 5106) 5198 and 5240.)
The City Clerk reported that no
• written protests had been received on this matter.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED No one from the audience addressed
the issue.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COUNCIL DISCUSSION The City Attorney presented;
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
RESOLUTION NO. 5288 THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTED CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE STREET
SUPERINTENDENT DATED JULY 21, 19765
MADE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE
2, SECTIONS 39574 THROUGH 39576.5,
LEVYING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEED AND
RUBBISH ABATEMENT FOR 1976.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to waive further reading of 'the body
of said resolution. Motion carried.
• Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt Resolution No. 5288. Motion
carried on roll call vote.as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 28 -
CITY COUNCIL
Oral Communications
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CITY ATTORNEY (CONT.)
RESOLUTION NO. 5289
ADOPTED
July 26, 1976
Page Twenty-nine
None.
The City Attorney presented:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TO PURCHASE CERTAIN RECREATION EQUIP-
MENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to waive further reading of the
body of said resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt Resolution No. 5289.
Motion carried on roll.call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT The City Attorney presented an Agree -
FOR FIRE ALARM BOX ment for Fire Alarm Box Maintenance
MAINTENANCE within the City for the next fiscal year.
In response to question by Councilman
Tice, Mr.Eliot presented a clarification of costs for this service..
Mayor Browne: How many units are we talking about?
Mr. Eliot: 30 units.
Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded
by Councilman Miller that the City Council waive any competitive
bidding procedures and approve.of and authorize the Mayor to
execute the contract with the Oremco Company effective August 1,
1976.
The Council and Mr. Eliot reviewed the
Agreement, noting the services which will be rendered, the
availability of other contractors, and the manpower situation at
this point within the.Communications Department of the City.
• follows:
Motion carried on roll call vote as
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 29 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
City Attorney Page Thirty
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented;
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA)
• AMENDING SECTIONS 6218, 62193 6220,
6226.5, 6227, 6233, 6234, 6235.1
AND 3612 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSES.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of said Ordinance. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to introduce said Ordinance.
Motion carried.
RESOLTUION NO. 5290
The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
PRESCRIBING THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE
APPLICABLE TO CITY DEPARTMENTS WITH I
REFERENCE TO MISCELLANEOUS CASH
RECEIPTS.
Motion made by Councilman.Chappell,
seconded by Councilman
Miller to waive further.reading.of the
• body of said resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman
Miller to adopt Resolution No..5290.
Motion carried on roll
call vote as follows:
i
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
i
RESOLUTION NO. 5291
The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST'COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTION VII OF THE SALARY
RESOLUTION NO. 1277 RELATING TO THE
AUTHORIZED POSITIONS IN THE CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE. I
i
Motion made by Councilman Tice,.
seconded by Councilman
Miller to waive further reading of the
body 'of said resolution. Motion carried.
0
- 30 -
CITY COUNCIL
City Attorney
July 26, 1976
Page Thirty-one
Motion made by Councilman Tice,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt Resolution No. 5291.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO THE CITY
CLERK,
Mr. Wakefield: The Ordinance fixes the compensation
payable to the incumbent City Clerk
at an amount which is equal to the
current salary prescribed for the City Clerk, plus the salary
paid for the Administrative Clerk position in the City Clerk's
office.
Motion made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Chappell to waive further reading of the
body of said Ordinance. Motion carried.
Councilman Shearer: Is this something that has to be done
• by Ordinance? I see paperwork being
generated here on the wild assumption
that we should be able to grant some adjustments in salaries
sometime in the future. This is normally handled by a change
in the resolution. If we set one salary in the City by Ordinance,
then we have to go through the Ordinance updating process. Is
it possible that this could be done by resolution?
Mr. Wakefield: The compensation payable to the
elected officers of the City, the
City Clerk and the City Treasurer,
is required to be fixed by Ordinance.
Motion made by Councilman. Miller,
seconded by Councilman Chappell to.introduce said Ordinance.
Motion carried.
MAYOR BROWNE RECESSED THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CONDUCTING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING.AT
10:10 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:25 P.M.
CITY MANAGER
• REVISED RATE SCHEDULE FOR
B.K.K. LANDFILL.
RESOLUTION NO. 5292
ADOPTED
The City Attorney presented:.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE MAXIMUM RATES FOR WASTE
DISPOSAL AT THE B.K.K. COMPANY LAND-
FILL IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA.
- 31 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976
City Manager Page Thirty-two
Mr. Eliot reviewed the Staff Report
with the Council, noting that the attached maximums are equiva-
lent to the rates charged by the County Sanitation Districts
• as of July 1, 1975. Therefore pricing in this area is not out
of line with other sanitary landfills in the Los Angeles basin.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of said resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to adopt Resolution No. 5292.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, .Shearer, Chappell,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
APPROVAL OF PURCHASE Mr. Eliot reviewed the Staff Report
OF XEROX MACHINE IN with the Council.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Tice to approve entering into a Purchase
Agreement with the Xerox Corporation for a 3600 copy machine
totaling $21,280.1ess down payment, sales tax and equipment
placement charges with the total monthly payments, including
full maintenance, of $562.48 for a five year period. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Shearer, Chappell,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REQUEST FOR BLOCK PARTY The Council received a request for
a.block party to be held on July 31,
1976, from Bruce Huntley, 2703 Dawn.
Ridge Place, West Covina.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Chappell to approve the request.
Councilman Miller: I am not against block parties, but
I am against blocking off public right -
'of -ways, so my vote will be :'no.'.'
Motion carried, 4 in favor, l opposed
(Miller)
- 32 -
CITY COUNCIL
City Manager
PARK SITE RELOCATION
WOODSIDE VILLAGE
Held Over from July 12,
1976
July 26, 1976
Page Thirty-three
Location: Area southwest of Nogales
Street and the proposed Shakespeare
Drive.
Mr. Diaz: The issue that was raised at the last
meeting was the question of having a
bridge connecting the two phases of
the park. As indicated on the Staff Report (July 26, 1976),
the feeling is that rather than constructing a bridge, it is
a lot more feasible to connect a pedestrian type of crossing
at the best place in the creek bed depending upon the final
configuration of it. As.far as accessibility to the park area,
this will not be a problem; the developer has guaranteed us
accessibility.
Therefore, Staff would recommend
Council approval of the park relocation.
Councilman Chappell: I was the one who posed the question.
What I wanted to know was who was
going to provide the method by which
people could get from.one side of the park to the other`.
With this type of bridge, how are we
going to get the lawnmowers, etc. from one side to the other?
• Mr. Diaz: The maintenance vehicles will have
to come around, but that does not.
present a problem as far as the
Recreation and Park Department is concerned.
The accessibility is guaranteed..
Councilman Chappell: That is what I was concerned about.
Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Miller to approve the park site relocation
of the eight acre. park to an area southwest of Nogales Street
and the proposed Shakespeare Drive. Motion carried.
MAYOR'S REPORTS
PROCLAMATIONS Mayor. Browne: If there are no objections
from the Council, I will declare "Better
Water for People Week''.August 8 14.1
1976.
PRESENTATION Mayor Browne: We have received a
Certificate of Appreciation awarded
to the West Covina City Council for
outstanding service.to the West Covina Independence Day Parade
Committee.
I think we have to compliment the
Parade Committee for the outstanding parade that they put on in
our City this year. Hopefully, we will have another one next year.
- 33 -
CITY COUNCIL July 26, 1976.
Mayor's Reports Page Thirty-four
RTD CORRIDOR"D" Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
BOARD VACANCY seconded by Councilman Tice to
nominate Mr. C. Storing.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to nominate Mr. A. Perez.
(Mayor Browne indicated that after
talking with both gentlemen, he would be inclined to cast his
vote for Mr. Perez.)
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Mayor Browne that the Council instruct Councilman
Chappell to cast the vote for Mr. Perez, as long as he is in
the running. At such time that it becomes obvious that Mr.
Perez is not in the running, that Mr. Storing would be the
Council's close second choice. In the event neither gentlemen
are in the running, Councilman Chappell should use his best
judgment as to whom to support. Motion carried..
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS
Councilman Chappell: I do think that the Mayor should
write letters to the Parade Committee
in appreciation of the Independence
Day Parade; to Mr. Shulman in appreciation for the concerts he
is putting on at the Fashion Plaza; and to the Sr.. Citizens
Committee for the excellent program at the Eastland Shopping
• Center last.weekend. (Mayor Browne concurred.)
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman.Tice to approve
Demands totalling $953,126.41 as listed on Demand Sheets U.C.B.
56286 through 56500 and B.A. No. 419. Motion carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell,
Tice, Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Shearer,
ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman.Chappell to.
adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M. until Wednesday, July 28, 1976,
at 6:00 P.M: Motion carried.
• ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
MAYOR
- 34 -