Loading...
03-28-1960 - Regular Meeting - Minutes• MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA March 28, 1960 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brown at 7:40 P. M. in the - West Covina City Hall, The'Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Mottinger, with the invocation given by Rev. Don Locher of the West Covina Methodist Church. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brown, Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes Others Present: Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Mr, Robert Flotten, City Clerk Mr. Harry C. Williams, City Attorney Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Coordinator Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public Service Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 9, 1960 - Approved as submitted March 10, 1960 - Approved as submitted March 14, 1960 - Approved as corrected, as follows: -_Page 25 - Limousine Service - the paragraph relative to this service should read •*to operate limousine service from Ontario Airport" instead of "to operate limousine service from airports", as shown. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS TRACT NO. 23971 LOCATION: Between Orange Avenue and Accept Street Improvements Sunset Avenue, south of Merced Avenue. (Horny Corporation) APPROVED City Clerk Flotten: This matter was held over in that on the second day of February:improvements were accepted for maintenance only, pending the replacement of certain, trees in the area. The bond covers both these street improvements and the sewer facilities which were accepted on June 8, 1959. The parkway trees have been replaced and the proper markers are in. The recommendation is for acceptance and release of the bond. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that street improvements in Tract No. 23971 be accepted and authorization given for the release of Anchor Casualty Company Bond No. 16-23061 in the amount of $52,000.00. • RESOLUTION NO. 1790 A The City Clerk presented: Accept Grant of Easement "A'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF (Eugene L. Wood) THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A Precise Plan No.' 27 CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING Sanitary Sewer Purposes THE RECORDATION THEREOF" ADOPTED LOCATTION: South of Garvey Avenue, west of California Avenue. Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. C. C. 3-28-60 Page Two RESOLUTION NO. 1790 - continued Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Heath,'that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent; :None Said Resolution was given No. 1790-A RESOLUTION NO. 1791 The City Clerk presented: Grant -.of Easement "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF (Shulman Development Co.) THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A Precise Plan No. 26 CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING Sanitary Sewer Purposes THE RECORDATION THEREOF" ADOPTED LOCATION: South of Garvey Avenue, between Batelaan Avenue and Califor- nia Avenue. Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: -Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1791 RESOLUTION NO. 1792 The City Clerk presented: Accepting Grant Deed "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF (Shulman Development Co.) THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A Precise Plan No, 26 CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING Street and Highway Purposes THE RECORDATION THEREOF" ADOPTED LOCATION: Sylvan Avenue and Batelaan Avenue south of Garvey Avenue between Sunset and California Avenues - to be known as Sylvan Avenue and Batelaan Avenue. Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: • Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent.- None Said Resolution was given No. 1792 Ca C. 3-28-60 RESOLUTION NO. 1793 Establishing A portion of • Grand Avenue as d County Highway and improvements thereof ADOPTED Mayor Brown. Page Three The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONSENTING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PORTION OF GRAND AVENUE AS A COUNTY HIGHWAY AND TO THE IMPROVEMENT THEREOF°' Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows. Ayes. Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes. None Absent. None Said Resolution was given No. 1793 PRECISE PLAN NO, 42 LOCATION. Southwest corner of Puente Time Extension Request and Azusa Avenues. (Albert Handler) APPROVED Request to extend time for development of Precise Plan No. 42 for a period of one year to June 27, 1961. Councilman Heath questioned, upon the City Clerk's indication of the number of times this time -extension had been granted, as to whether this was permissible in that it was his understanding only one time® extension is permitted by law. The City Attorney stated that this was in relation to subdivisions. It was further indicated by the Mayor and the City Manager that this delay had been caused as the result of an error between State and engineering forces at the time the highway was built and that time has been spent attempting to get this situation, as it has developed here as a result of that error, straightened out and corrected. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that the request of Albert Handler for a time -extension period of one year to June 27, 1964, on Precise Plan No. 42, be approved, PROJECT NO. C-101 LOCATION-. 1444 West Garvey Avenue City Hall Addition CITY ENGINEER TO City Manager Aiassa. Although this PROCEED WITH PROJECT item is on my Agenda relative to City Manager's reports, it is also on the regular Agenda at this time so we can cover the matter now. I have a report relative to the cost estimates' of the project, and if the Council approves this the engineering office can receive bids on April 21, 1960, make a finalized report on • it and the contract can be approved on April 25, 1960, which is a regular meeting of Council. It would be about 90 days for the contrac- tor to complete the contract so the completipn date would be around July 31st with occupancy at the end of August or the first of September, Mayor Brown. What was set up in the budget for this? City Manager Aiassa. The amount of $14,000.00, and we were to take funds from the sale of the old police station to subsidize this, but we might have to take funds from capital outlay if we do not sell the police building because we felt we could realize some $22,000.00 from the old building, i • Ca Co 3-28-60 Page Four PROJECT NO, C-101 - dqntinued Councilman Barnes-. Is the estimated cost around $30,000,00? City Manager Aiassao About $31,000.00; We added - two §ide'- walls to it as recommended by the City Council, Councilman Heath: Plumbing was also added for rest room change over. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the City Engineer be authorized to proceed with Project C-101, Mrs. Van Dame: Inasmuch as you are planning, eventually, to have a new City Hall, is it necessary to put in this extra space on this present City Hall and where is it going to be?. Mayor Brown; We do need more space, although tonight we have only'taken action to approve Plans and Specifications and are not spending any money. This will be added to the rear wing. Mrs. Van Dame: Aren't you going to build a new City Hall in the near future? Mayor Brown: In the future, but not in the near future. Mr. Aiassa: We have so many public works projects the new City Hall seems to be getting further away into the future. PETITION FOR STREET LOCATION. Willow Lane, a private street, IMPROVEMENT'S northwest of Willow Avenue between Willow Lane San Bernardino Freeway and Pacific Avenue. HELD OVER Held over from last meeting and referred to Engineer for report, Review Engineer's report, Held over to next regular meeting for Council to study report submitted. SEWER AS$9SSMENT Amendment April 1, 1960 ENGINEER',$ CONTRACT APPROVED AS PROPOSED Authorize the revision of contract as per proposed amendment. City Clerk Flottena This amendment covers an increas of . $1.00 per parcel in charges for Assess- ment!Enginoer's review. It is the first increase in the cost of this work since 1956 and has to do with Division 4 and Division 7 of the 'Streets and Highways Code. Division 7 is the 1911 Act under which we are operating. Division 4 has to do with debt limitations on property which may already have a debt on it and so would make prohibitive adding the cost.of any sewers. This is the first change requested by Mr. Thompson, the Assessment Engineer, since 1956 and recommendation is for approval, C o C. 3.=28-60 Page Five SEWER ASSESSMENT ENGINEER°S CONTRACT - continued Mr. Rosetti: I am the representative from'Mro . Thompson°s office. We have held to -a - certain standard here. A debt limita- tion report is a complete spread prior to the presentation to Council and if there is indebtedness against a particular property which is higher than a certain level it can°t go ahead so we charge an extra $1.00 for that. We do not charge the same fee to every city, -as certain cities which we started with, there are three left, are going on a parcel basis whereas with others we are,going on 2% to contract cost and the fee runs a little higher. You notice the $3,500.00 fee would be $4;200,00 and the regular fee would be $5,800.00 with other cities who are on the straight 2%. Everything is rising in cost. This would only affect Division 7 because you very seldom have Division 4, You operate under the health menace which is Section 2808 and very seldom use it under Division 4> City Clerk Flotten: This will be effective on any new projects dated after April 1, 1960. City Manager Aiassa: What is on the books now would not be affected. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that authorization be given for the revision of contract with Mr. Thompson as proposed, effective April 1, 1960, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Noes: None Absent: None SCHEDULED MATTERS WEED ABATEMENT Protest Hearing Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Hearing set by Resolution No. 23, 1960. Mr, City Cler), are City Clerk Flotten: Mayor Brown: Mayor Brown: This is the time and place for the hearing of any and all protests or objections from property owners and other interested parties. 1766 adopted by City Council on February there any written or oral protests? There were no written or oral protests. Is there anyone in the audience desir- ing to speak on this matter? Mr, Charles Kupferer I had a protest last year but found 938 Se California Ave. out I got it in a little bit too late. West Covina I have acreage on California and have it fenced. Without any permission or • approach to me the weed abaters came through and clipped the fence, broke up one of my weir boxes and charged $28.00 for discing,> I talked with the City department about this and was told there were'two'or three weeks allowed for protests on any damage donee I didn't do anything further about it but I think, to protect myself and the .rest of the property owners, this thing should be looked into and whoever gets the contract for this work should be told that if areas are fenced they should go to the home of the property owner first to find out which is the best way to get into the property to control the weeds and not just to clip fences. I am pretty sure it was noticed when the weir box was broken off, Co Co 3-28-60 Page Six WEED ABATEMENT - continued Mr. Charles Kupferer - continued: . My property is very deep and I do not get out there very"often'so­it was perhaps two, three or four weeks time before I got out there and noticed the damage donee Mayor Browne We try to have City forces inspect behind the contractor doing this work but they may have overlooked this. How- ever, you have 35 days from the time of completion of the contract with the City to protest as we hold back payment of the fee for 35 days, feeling any claim would be in by that time. Councilman Pittenger: Who determines whether a second discing is necessary? Public Service Director Dosh: The superintendent of the City streets has the power to make this decision. Councilman Pittenger: When will you start? Public Service Director Dosh: April 15th is the schedule to start with the last discing about June 15th, It would be about two weeks between the 10 days notice and if abating is not done we go in. Actually, we give another two weeks leeway before starting. If it is done before we start, we will not abate them. There being no further comments from the audience, the hearing was declared closed._ Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Council orders the weeds be abated, BIDS REMOVAL OF WEEDS Bids were opened in the office of the Bid Awarded City Clerk, as advertised, on March 17, John Co Warner 1960, for the removal of weeds from.and in front of certain real property within the City. Notice of publication of the notice of this hearing had been received from the West Covina Tribune on March 3 and 10, 1960, and as a news item in the Green Sheet on February 26 and March 4, 1960. The bids were as follows: JOHN C,.WARNER - Total estimated price $11,710.00 CALIFORNIA TREE SERVICE, INC. - It " 12,105.00 P. I. HADDAN, JR. - •' 15, 742. 50 The recommendation of the City Engineer was for award of bid to John Co Warner on the basis of his low bid, in accordance with prices and schedules as outlined in the bid proposal, for the work of removal of weeds. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes that the recommendation of the City Engineer be approved and the contract be awarded to John Co Warner, as the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of an estimated cost of $11,710.00. Co C. 3-28-60 Page Seven BIDS - REMOVAL OF WEEDS - continued Motion passed on roll call as follows: • Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None 20NE CHANGE NO. 155 LOCATION: Northwest corner of Irwindale A. L. Snell and and Puente Avenues James L. Allen Request for R-1, R-3 and C-1 uses denied REFERRED,,BACK TO PLANNING by Planning Commission Resolution No. COMMISSION WITH RECOMMEN- 873 on March 2, 1960. DATION FOR APPROVAL Applicant appealed on March 3, 1960. Maps were presented by the City Clerk and.the Resolution of the Planning Commission was read. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing and stated that all those desir- ing to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. Mayor Brown: We are acting under Ordinance No. 502 which allows 3 minutes to each side to present their discussion. If a longer time is desired by either party we would like you to state how long you would desire to have to present your testimony. Mr. Snell: We would like about 20 or 25 minutes to present our testimony. Mayor Brown: Council indicated they will permit 15 minutes to the proponents and opponents. Mr, A. Snell I am co-owner of this property with 1160 S. Lark Ellen Ave. Mr. Allen. West Covina With reference to the application we have had this property for 32 years and have spent considerable time, effort and expense trying to develop it in the manner satisfactory to the City and to ourselves. We are applying for firm zoning and if it is granted we will submit a Precise Plan in the immediate future for your approval. This is a large parcel of land and will develop nicely as a shopping center but past events make it impractical to develop relative to proposed prior use with a Safeway building across the street on Puente Avenue and on a much smaller parcel. We want to develop this property now, without further loss, and present this plan far your considera- tion. The land on the east, which is Irwindale Avenue, is a 100 foot highway plus a service road. On the south is Puente Avenue which is a secondary highway, on the west is Yaleton and north is territory con- taining a church day school. At the southwest corner of Puente and Irwindale there is an existing service station. Due to these surround- ings it is almost impossible to develop this as R-lo The day school has 325 students to the north, a service station on the corner, and the Safeway commercial is across the street and this is not good for R-1, without a buffer. The plan we propose is a secondary shopping area along Puente and surrounding the service station, containing retail storessuch as barber shop, shoe repair, laundromat, etc., supplemental services of the Safeway Store. C. C. 3-28-60 ZONE CHANGE N0. 155 - continued Mr. A. Snell - continued: Page Eight 10 On the northerly 200 feet we are negotiating A sale for a Christian' Church and it will act as a buffer for the day school already thbre.- This particular parcel is not part of this plan we -are presenting be- cause we are requesting a zone change and the Church requires a var- iance. On the westerly side is Yaleton and to protect that area we -proposed R-1 to act as a buffer between R-3 and these homes. As an alternate we felt we could develop very acceptable garden type apartments which would be an asset to the area and homes and yet act as a buffer to the homes. We have spent considerable time and money to develop this property and feel we have a proposal here which will permit us to realize our in- vestment and break even. We have tried to arrange this plan in a manner that would be an asset to the area and to properly buffer it to protect other investments in the area. Considering the exceptions made in the past we are of the opinion -that commercial is suitable here and that we are entitled to more than R-1 zoning. Mr. T. Tice In the past I have testified against 734 Irwindale this property for commercial but this West Covina apparent plan for R-1, R-3 and C-1 is acceptable to the majority of the pro- perty owners along Irwindale. Mr. N. Gilbert I live on the other side of this subject 714 N. Foxdale property to the west. I believe this West Covina plan as presented is basically better than that presented during the past 31 years. I do not believe that any highest and best use can be considered without the economics of developing land and I do not think this is good for all R-1 property, nor would loan commitments: be secured for lots as R-1. Council should consider the fact that this is not R-1 property and that development of this property should be planned with some consideration of usage other than single family residential and recommend the plan as proposed or else give a counter suggestion as to what can be done with this land after they have spent 3'J years trying to develop it. E. Glavis I recently bought a new home adjacent 1505 W. Elgenie to the northern section of this property West Covina under discussion and I am in favor of this proposal as presented this evening. From the Audience: What is this church that is to be,con- sidered for the northerly 200 feet? Mayor Brown: This is not the matter before Council • tonight. He is just stating that nego- tiations are being made for the possi- bility of a church going in, but that matter is not under consideration here and we haven't granted any church nor is any church up for con- sideration. Whatever the decision is on this tonight the north 200 feet is not included in granting or denying this application before us. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. C. C. 3-28-60 Page Nine ZONE CHANGE NO. 155 - continued Councilman Heath.- I agree with the comments made by • Mr. Gilberto This would be a -problem piece of property to develop-ds'R-1- It has a gas station on the corner, no R-1, and a Safeway across the street. No doubt the man has spent considerable to try to develop this property as he has been in times before. This looks like the first realistic proposal we have had on it where this C-1 would be a supplemental shopping area to the Safeway and is buffered all the way around. I see no objection to this layout. Councilman Pittenger. One thing should be made real clear, which you did, Mr. Mayor, and that was that the property to the north where the applicant indicates there may be a proposed church is a matter not under consideration and Council, by any action, does not imply any such use will be granted on that property. It is R-A now and it may be R-1 but there is no reason for anyone to believe a church will be granted there just because the applicant makes a statement about such a church now. I think R-1 on the west side of the property is a good idea because it buffers the people across the street and I would like to see it remain there, but I have no objection to the proposed R-3 or C-1 portion. Councilman Mottinger. I have no particular comment to make except this is the most realistic pro- posal to come before us on this property and apparently there has been overcome, or worn down, the opposition of the neighborhood as some of them have changed their thinking and voiced approval. I believe that was one of the big blocks we have had to__consider in the past relative to the homes in the area and to try to make this compatible to them, so a step forward has been made. Councilman Barnes. I think this is a better plan than we have ever seen before on this area and I ask the applicant if it would be possible to develop this R-1 prior to the commercial development be- cause if these other uses would develop first there is always the danger of coming back for a higher use on this R-1, saying that it can't_. be developed in R-1 because of surrounding use, and I would like to see the R-1 developed first. You are only asking for rezoning which could mean you will possibly sell off these as parcels, you are not asking for development, so I would like to be sure the R-1 is developed as R-1 to protect homeowners to the west. Councilman Heath. Would the R-1 develop before or simul- taneously? Councilman Barnes. Simultaneously would be all right. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that Zone Change No. 155 be referred back to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that the zone change be approved upon the submission of a proper Precise Plan for the property. Mayor Brown. The Precise Plan would be a subdivision map pf the lots, Precise Plan of apart- ments,'where the commercial stores will be, where the parking will be located - a precise plan as to what you intend to do with the land. C. Co 3-28-60 ZONE CHANGE NO. 154 and - PRECISE PLAN NO 216 . (Hyman Weisel) ' REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION Page Ten LOCATION: 924-930 California Avenue (easterly side of California, between Barbara and Vine Avenues) Request for R-3a uses and adoption of Precise Plan of Design denied by Planning Commission Resolutions No, 874 and 875 on March 2,.19600 Applicant appealed March 4, 1960. Maps were presented by the City Clerk who stated there were received the affidavits of notice of public hearing as published in the -West Covina Tribune of March 17, 1960, with 62 notices mailed as required by law, in the area. The Resolutions of the Commission were read. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing and stated that all those desir- ing to -present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. Mayor Brown: We are operating under Ordinance No, 502 which permits 3 minutes to proponents and opponents to present their dis- cussion. We would request if any further time is needed that it should be so stated so that Council may consider the matter, Mr. Weisel stated he would desire 10 or 15 minutes to present his case and it was consensus that 15 minutes be permitted, Mr, Ho Weisel I am the builder and developer and 3361 S. Glendora have had a business license in the West Covina City for, the past 6 years, and have built the Jewel Homes in the area. I have brought the artist,lls drawing of the proposed development which I would like to present. If you will notice this Precise Plan is a self-contained project within itself. It doesn't start until approximately 250 feet from California Avenue and sets the development off by itself and is not visilale to the passerby on California Avenue; all they would see would be the attractive design of lights, water fountain and a 70 foot wide drive approach with Landscaping, and the development would enhance the beauty of"'Cal iforniaz Avenue. Inside the project is one and two bedroom dwelling units of quality and design. We have exceeded the requirements of Ordinance 613 in this use in that we have a ground coverage of 25%, City permits 50%; density permitted is 40 families per acres and we have 23 per acre; off-street parking is 11 spaces per apartment and we have a total of 201 apartment spaces. You require 100 square feet per apartment of recreation area and we have 500 square feet per apartment. It is indicated we have cut corners to 30 foot radii and met fire department requirements by having a 10 foot concrete walk in the center which is to be constructed in a manner acceptable to support • fire 'equipment. There will be only one-story buildings built where R-1 zoning is closer than 100 feet to the property line. Per the Planning Commission recommendations, we have placed the recreation area further from the R-1 as indicated. At the Commission meeting of February 17, 1960, it was stated this plan had been considered by the Fire Department, traffic department and City Engineer and they had considered this plan as acceptable in relation to traffic regulations, and since these are qualified men in t4)e City I believe serious consideration should be given to those opinions Co Co 3-28-60 Page Eleven ZONE CHANGE NO, 154 and PRECISE PLAN NO.- 2X,6 _ continued Mr, He Weisel - continued: • The Commission felt this would create additional traffic -on California Avenue but the Planning Department made a traffic count and indicated that possibly some 8%,more traffic might arise from this use here. I bringp-;this to Council°s attention because we have only 135-apartments here now which is different as to what was previously indicated and so less apartments would reduce the traffic flow even further. It was - also stated that when Vincent Avenue interchange was completed, Cali- fornia traffic would probably decrease by 20%. We do not feel a project such as this should be prevented from being developed due to the temporary possibility of a slight percentage of traffic increase. The Commission stated that the proposed development is too extensive for the area. I do not understand the meaning of "too extensive". If they meant the general area of West Covina I.would ask if 135 apartments located in this City is too extensive? Is the project conveniently located to the City°s major shopping center, to streets and.freeways, too extensive? If they meant it is too extensive for the immediate area on which the property is situated, again I ask is a project well designed, self-contained with a ground coverage of 25%, too extensive? There was a statement made by Mr. Joseph in the Commission minutes that this is planned to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and that it was felt it would be an adequate and worthwhile type of Precise Plan, and did not find it detrimental to surrounding property and would fit in nicely with the existing development on the land. I would add that this fits in with future development as well. The development doesn't affect the block study as seen by the study submitted by the Planning Department shown on the board. I would read a letter from the Real Estate Division of Von°s Market in that they have reviewed the project -bordering the market and see no conflict between the development and the market and believe it would enhance the area and be a credit to the City. They would recommend approval of this proposed project. According to the studies made at past Commission meetings, it was agreed that Rm3 zoning would be proper buffering between R-1 and C zoning, Proper R-3 should be broken at rear lot line rather than at one side of the street, and facing on other is R—lo I would like to show you what happens if we use the proper zoning requirements. The over-all zoning for Glendora Avenue shows a C•zoning, and there are several other C zonings -on Glendora. It shows the depth of C zoning on.Glendora would go as far as indicated by road on the sketch I brought, which is scale, and the portion of property in question. Then put in a row of R-3 lots for buffering purposes and put in a row across the street also of Rm3. The remainder in accordance with present zoning is to be R—lo This street design is in conformance with studies made:by the Department in June of. 1959 and recently. I ask Council how can anyone develop this parcel? I. would have to first wait for the most southerly land to be developed and there are a considerable number of parcels individually owned and this may not occur for a long, long time. Mr. Co Kupferer The rear of my property is involved in 938 California Avenu this development and the only thing I West Covina would desire to leave before the Council is that this has been brought up several times. In the time of approximately 3 years ago there was an application for rezoning on the westerly 540 feet facing Glendora and applied for all C-1 zoning. It was partly.C-1, C.-C. 3-28-60 Page Twelve ZONE CHANGE NO. 154 and PRECISE PLAN NO, 216 --continued Mr, Co Kupferer - continued: 49 then applied for all C-lo I was at that meeting and -stated -that -I - had no objections so long as at some future date we could count on an R-3 development. Council was in agreement at that time and actually -- on the maps they had our.property in the back was marked Potential R-3o This was agreed upon. Sy approximately a year later the neighbors got together and applied for R-3 zoning. It was held -before the Com- mission and Mr. Gerschler stated at that time he felt it was a very good plan and the Commission passed it, but the Council rejected it due to the fact of objections to it from the neighbors and due to the fact there was no immediate need or plans for immediate development. Our hope was to have it zoned R-3 so as to be able to contact a devel- oper to develop this thing as it should be developed. Now we have an opportunity to develop this, which at present is nothing but a weed patch, and to develop it the way it should be done and for some reason or other we have objections to it. Our property is R-1 and we are bordering on this thing and we feel that our property is as valuable as anybody else's, yet we feel this proposed use will help us. We have a shopping center there now and it is impossible for them to make a living unless it is developed and developed properly. This will not be taken in under R-1, the income wouldn't be there. We have a hospital going in two blocks from us which will cause even more need for apartment development in this area. IN OPPOSITION Mrs. Gaines There are a number of neighbors here 914 W. Barbara and we decided to have only one spokes - West Covina man but I will read the list of those here present, and others, who are -in opposition and all are located on Barbara in one block. This matter was unanimously rejected by the Commission at their meeting. We dispute the need for this R-3 zoning here because we have areas along the Freeway for such use which are not developed and those that are, are not completely occupied. R-3 zoning in this area might be a need but only for a buffer zone around Von's Market which is probably more desirable, but only if kept as a buffer and not be made into a huge development as this proposes. I think you can visualize this at the very far end toward Barbara as a "chunk" of R-3 in there and that it would only mean there will be more R-3 going in between the end and Merced because if this is put in, there is not much chance to develop any more R-1 in the area. The people on California have always wanted to develop back of their property as R-3 because they wanted to make as much as they could off of it, and this would not only develop this one "chunk' but all the rest will go that way, too. Compare 135 families in this one area in relation to the 12 families along Barbara and that is the kind of congestion we didn°t plan on having when we bought and built our homes here. Another thing is that the Commission stated they have always tried to keep; -this kind of zoning off California and to make this less rather than' bigger. This isn't even on Glendora but on California and he hasn't complied as to entering from Glendora instead of California, C. Co 3-28-60 Page Thirteen ZONE CHANGE NO, 154 and PRECISE PLAN NO. 216 - continued Mrs. Gaines - continued: California isn't a street where neon lights, fountains and things of - that sort should be, it is a residential street which is barely ade- quate for the traffic it carries now. Wescove School is being built to take care of the overflow of children attending school in the area, and to enable single sessions, and I would assume in planning this school. there wasn't taken into considera- tion an R-3 area in here which would probably mean another school being built to take care of the children..this use would bring in. Fire and Police protection is a problem and my husband, who is on the Los Angeles Police Department, indicates that wherever there is this kind of development the,police and fire problems are much greater - there is no question about it, they just are. We feel that it is unfair to place R-3 here. We feel there is no precedence for anything of this kind in West Covina built for lots of people with minimum recreation facilities and one little swimming pool. We also object to the noise, and extra cars would be a nuisance with the carports and a roadway at the outside of this use, along outside edge. We like our privacy, too, and even with two story 100 feet away you can still see into the living area of homes and it cuts down the enjoyment of our homes and their privacy. He hasn't opened Duff because no one wants that open who lives there. We would ask that if and when this might be zoned R-3 that it be kept as a buffer zone and not zoned for a large chunk like this just for personal profit. We feel we have a stake in this area as citizens and we expect to be protected as private property owners. We pay taxes that are real high but are willing to pay those taxes to live in a lovely City, but if we must live next to apartment dwellings why pay such high taxes to have that next to us when we could live next to such uses, and pay less, in Los Angeles. Mrs. Busan 848 W. Barbara West .,Cov ina their kitchens or living rooms penon°s home is private without Most of our houses have rearliving and bedrooms with large windows. I can go to Von°s in the evening and on the side look into my house and I do not feel I would like to have people sitting in and watching my television. I feel a having nosy neighbors. Why,:shouldn°t Von°s approve this, it is more money in their pockets. Mr. C. Welt 868 Duff Avenue West Covina Mrs. R. Hanna 948 So California West Covina rest of the lands the people to the it has been vacant to develop in that the development of I would agree with all that has been said in opposition. I border the property on the south. I agree with the applicant he has a right to develop his land, but he's putting in a self-contained unit with no means of exit or entrance for the He mentioned that it would be a long time before south opened up, and I believe that is true, because for a long time, but all would like the privilege area and if he closes one side, it completely closes that area for a long time,. Ca C. 3-28-60 Page Fourteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 154 and PRECISE PLAN NO. 216 - continued There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed, Councilman Heath: Mr. Weisel: with the requirements it is I have seen in the newspaper this is a million dollar project. At the time it was first submitted to the Commission it was approximately a million, but now that we have complied closer to $850,OOO.00. Councilman Mottinger: I would remind Council that at the time Von°s Market was granted for variance we had considerable discussion of the area to the northwest and I know that it was all considered, at the time, to be R-3 potential. Nothing was granted on it but it was studied along those lines. This development would raise a question in my mind, although I doubt if there is an answer for it, in that this would extend R-3 in a more northeasterly direction than our original thinking was, which would possibly permit more total R-3 in the area if there was a tendency to go ahead on it, which somewhat complicates the over-all picture. Councilman Heath: We discussed it and put R-3 around the shopping center and it is true that this is extendlhg it over to California Avenue and it may be in the wrong direction. However, from the looks of it, it seems to be an asset to the area rather than a small "dinky" R-3o A small R-3 in here could be more detrimental whereas if somebody is going to invest this type of money he will protect the area better than a "dinky" R-3 we possibly had in mind. It is next to school and market and it might be difficult to develop R-1. There might be more R-3 use here than originally planned on, but I.believe it is the type of R-3 we would like to have. Councilman Barnes: Was this the map that was submitted at the time of the Commission hearing? Councilman Mottinger: No. This plan is the same in the basic layout but it has incorporated the criticisms that the Commission leveled at the plan that was presented to them, namely; that the buildings �al:.ong the northeasterly boundary have now been reduced to one story; that that would eliminate the objections previously leveled of two- story next to R-1 property. There are only two.little corners here of buildings falling within that 100 foot limitation on R,-3b, if this is to scale. Another objection which was voiced was that the recrea- tion area and swimming paol, next to the northeasterly boundary, has now been moved inside a court beyond a one-story building so it is now removed to an extent of 120 feet to the swimming pool where pre- viously it was up close to the roadway. I believe those are the two principal changes. There was one other suggestion made which did not come out at this hearing and I think I should mention it for Council consideration. The Commission raised the question of entrance from Glendora Avenue thinking that there would not be so much traffic at that entrance. I think the applicant stated at that time that he could.do this if necessary - get an exit on Glendora Avenue, Does that still stand? Mr. Weisel: If it should be required, I believe I can still purchase the property, but I feel another entrance at that point will make it a thoroughfare. Co Co 3-28-60 Page Fifteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 154 and PRECISE PLAN NO, 216 - continued Councilman Mottinger: I would tend to agree with that surmises If there is a.roadway clear through there would be more traffic flows Councilman Pittenger: It would be possible to close the -one on California. We have three parcels north and west of this proposed entrance about 250 feet deep. I think what we are going to do with those should be considered and what we are going to do with this and what will happen to those streets stubbed in below the property. I think a block study of the whole area is in order before we pass on it or the Commis- sion considers its Mr. Joseph: there was -a street going out study made by the Commission, is to show what would happen Councilman Pittenger: Mr. Joseph: There is a block study formally approved by the Commission which would not work any more. Duff was carried through and to Glendora, which is the former block What we have also attempted to do here if this were approved. R-3 backing up to R-3 and R-1, R-3 beyond -this point because ment, this is the half street approval and these lots would Councilman Pittenger: Mr. Joseph: us as if this would stay was;_what happens after a was no answer to that in Councilman Mottinger: Councilman Heath: What is the proposed zoning where the street cul-de-sacs, R-l? This was just lightly touched upon and I do not want to speak for the Commission., but we suggested to them these could be and it would not be necessary to carry these lots would back up to the develop- Von°s.would give us when they had their front onto single family. Entrance from California to be R-1? It was pointed out there are substantial developments on that land and the area is in very nice shape and it looked to that way a long time, but then the question long time with lots 250 feet deep, and there the meeting. Actually, those four lots.are about 400 feet deep and the applicant is buying some of that. On this possible alternate entrance, I wonder if it is feasible to require that in that it brings traffic onto Glendora and Glendora is a very heavily trafficked street now. As pointed out, if this development goes in it would only be increasing onto California 8%, or less,now since the development is smaller. Mayor Brown: I think we should back up and take a good look at everything that lies from this property to Merced and Glendora to California before spotting R-3 in here. I would have no intent to back R-3 to Barbara Avenue R-1, R-3 was backed up to that portion that was put into C-1 and I can't see putting R-3 on California and going that deep as it is opening the door for R-3 zoning clear to Merced. I think there should be a block study. Councilman Barnes: review of the Precise Plan and Since the Commission hasn't seen this .map that is before -us I would like to -recommend we send it back to them for also a block study`of this area, C Co 3-28-60 Page Sixteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 154 and PRECISE PLAN NO. 216 - continued Councilman Heath: Is this just for rezoning or is there • an intention to develop? Mr, Weisel: There is a communication from the Southern California Mortgage and Finance Company relative to financing and we are prepared to build when zoning and plan is approved. The pool isn't a small pool but of olympic size and there are plans to freeze it over for ice skating in the winter. In reference to this causing an overload on school, usually in renting only 40% of two bedroom is adults and children and we have only 28 such apartments, so there is not much chance of causing an overload of school children. Whether this is developed or not, the property to the south is in no worse position to develop now than before. As to a block study, -on March 7, 1956, a study was approved,by the Commission but on September 17, 1958, the Commission recommended to the Planning Department, --that they make a restudy of the area due to the fact they did vary from the plan at that time. In June, 1959, three studies were made and a study was made just a month ago by the Planning Department and all those studies couldn't answer the problem of lots 250 feet in depth in which property south of ours would be involved. It seems some problems can't be solved, Mayor Brown: It was stated you couldn't develop this property due to the property lying to the south,- you could develop pro- perty off of Duff, Councilman Heath: In discussion, did the Commission bring up these points? Councilman Mottinger: They brought -up these points, that is why the changes have been made. Councilman Pittenger: Did they bring up the point of entrance from Glendora Avenue? Councilman Mottinger° Yes. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that since the Planning Commission has not seen the plans as presented to the Council they be referred back to the Planning Commis- sion for review with the recommendation to study the entire area and present a report to Council. Mayor Brown called a recess. Council reconvened at 9:35 Po Me • Ce .C, 3-28-60 Page Seventeen ZONE CHANGE NO 152 LOCATION: Northeast corner --of FAirgkove Dominco Marengo Avenue and Tonopah Avenue. (Sugar -Construction Co.) APPROVED Request to reclassify from R-A, Area -- District II to Zone R-A, Area District Io Approved conditionally by the Planning - Commission under their Resolution No. 869. Hearing closed. Held over from meeting of March 14, 1960. Mayor Brown:. The map previously before us was a sug- gested revision by the Planning Depart- ment and accepted by the Commission but had .not been indicated on the map presented by the applicant. Councilman Mottinger: Does this conform to the suggestions made by Council? Mayor Browne The suggestions.made were for these lots to be precised out on the applicant's map, City Clerk Flotten: The conditions were that the lots be Area II for those facing Tonopah and and interior lots to be Area I. Motion 'by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Zone Change No, 15#.Zbe approved as recommended by the Planning Commission on February 17, 1960. Held over from meeting of March 14, 1960. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 25592 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commissiono DbSTRICT A°11-57-5 Hearing of protests and objections to Installation of forming a 1911 Act Assessment District .Sanitary Sewers to cover installation of sanitary sewers in the Cortez Street, Hollenbeck Street and Vanderhoof Drive Sewer District. Set for hearing on this date by Resolution of Intention Noe 1760 passed by the City Council at their regular meeting of Feb- ruary 8, 1960. Mayor Brown: 'his is the time and place for hearing protests or objections against improve- ment of Cortez Street and other streets in the City of West Covina as described in Resolution of Intention No. 1760. Does the City Clerk have the affidavits of publication, posting.and mailing relative to this hearing? City Clerk Flotten: I have the affidavits. Mayor Brown: I would entertain a motion the affidavits be received and filed. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the affidavits of publication, posting and mailing be received and filed. Mayor Brown: Do we have any written protests or objections against this proposed im- provement? City Clerk Flotten: We have no written protests. C. Co 3-28-60 Page Eighteen A111-57-5 SANITARY,SEWERS INSTALLATION - continued Mayor Brown: Is there anyone in the audience desiring to protect this proposal? Mr, B. Ho Mandell of 2,750 E. Cortez stated he had no objections but did have a question regarding an easement in that he is confronted with a triangular lot with 600 feet frontage and if figured at 5.63 assessable front foot it would be a cost of $3,378.00 as compared to others. Mr. Rosetti explained what the actual assessment would be and Mr. Mandell expressed that he was satisfied with the explanation. Mr, R. Entwhistle of 2729 E. Sunset stated he also had a question rela- tive to frontage and easement on a portion of property that is unuseable to him and Mr. Rosetti also explained the actual assessment on this matter and Mr. Entwhistle indicated he was satisfied with the explanation.. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the hearing of protests and objections on District A'11-57-5 be closed, RESOLUTION NO. 1794 The City Attorney presented: District A111-57-5 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF (Ordering work.to be done) THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING WORK ADOPTED TO BE DONE ON VANDERHOOF DRIVE AND OTHER STREETS AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION OF OF INTENTION NO, 1760" (A911-57-5) Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent:- None Said Resolution was given No. 1794 DLSTRI,CT A°11.n-57.=3 Hearing of protests or objections to Proposal to Change Work changing work and acquisition in the and Acquisition Lark Ellen Avenue and Stuart Avenue HEARING CONTINUED Sewer District. Set for hearing on this date by; Resolution No, 1787 passed by City Council at their regular meeting of March 14, 1960. Hearing continued from March 14, 1960 to include this proposed change of work and acquisition reflected in Resolution No. 1787. Reduction of 25 feet of sewer line. Mr, Frank De -.Lay: I am not protesting this, but through the grapevine it would seem thatsame of these sewer lines will cross my propeity-and I am concerned as I have never been contacted regarding easements. I am::president of the West Covina Development Corporation, Publ'ic-Service:Director Dosh: You will be contacted. The sewer line is across the rear of your property, Co C. 3-28-60 Page Nineteen DISTRICT A111-57-3 HEARING - continued.. Mr, De Lay: I would go on record as protesting the crossing of my property with this sewer line on any portion other than the southerly, or back 25 feet.- I understood you will be cutting through the middle. Our propery is 180 feet deep and if that is done it will go through 100 feet from the side only leaving'80 feet on side of sewer and 100 feet on the other. City Manager Aiassa: We are following the same as the alley going back there now. Mr, De Lay: My neighboring property used that and has developed the property entirely different from the precise plan - developed 140 feet in depth. He has torn up parking lots paved there and put buildings on and gone way beyond the precise plan, Mr, Aiassa: We are neogitating with 4 major owners and will go through regular channels or condemnation procedure. Mr. De Lay: I am opposed to the sewer line crossing my property unless it is on the southerly 25 feet. I.feel this way because pro- perty adjoining mine on the south has developed 140 feet in depth with buildings and this would completely ruin any further depth of my building for possibly more than 90 feet, It was consensus this hearing be continued pending furtherinvestiga- tion of this matter, relative to easement, and expedited. PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING FEES Tabled at the request of the City Managers METES AND BOUNDS LOCATION: Northeast corner of Glendora SUBDIVISION NO, 135-164 and Vine Avenues E. J Hotchkiss 1.56 Acres - 4 Lots '- Area District II APPROVED Recommended for approval by Planning Commission on March 16, 1960. Maps were presented and the recommendations of the Planning Commission were read by the City Clerk. Mr, Joseph: This was formerly subdivision Noa135-1440 There were parcels 1, 2, 3 and also a part of this parcel 4. Now they want to resubdivide parcel 4 and parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 and we want to make sure that this.lot parcel No. l of the Subdivision 135-144 remains for parking. Possibly the motion as read should have stated that it should be Lot l'for parking of Subdivision No. 135-144. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-164 be approved, subject to'the Planning Commission recommendations, except that the recommendations include to stipulate that Lot 1 is in Subdivision No. 135-144. Co C. 3-28-60 Page Twenty RECREATION AND PARK TEEN=KAN-TEEN PLANS Motion by Councilman Heath, -seconded by AND SPECIFICATIONS Councilman Pittenger and carried9'that the Plans and Specifications of the -- Teen-Kan-Teen be referred to the Recrea- tion and Parks Commission for review before presentation to Council. RESOLUTION NO. 1795 The City Attorney presented. Ordering certain "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF modifications to be done THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING CERTAIN District A111-57-3 MODIFICAT ONS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE ADOPTED AND ACQUVIONS TO BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A111-57-3" (Lark Ellen Avenue, et al.) Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by,Councilman Mottinger, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1795 CITY CLERK'S REPORTS CONTINUED STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT Review of proposal for street lighting Engineer's Proposal assessment districts submitted by 1960-1961 L. J. Thompson. Authorize agreement. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement. DISTRICT A°11-58-4 LOCATION: California Avenue and Crumley SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT Avenue Sewer District. ENGINEER TO PROCEED Report of Los Angeles County Health Officer. Accept revised report and instruct City Engineer to proceed pursuant to provisions of Section 2808, Division 4, of the Streets and Highways Code. The report of the County Health Officer was read as follows: "RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that sanitary sewers be installed in this district. "ANALYSIS: On September 28, 1959, this department recommended to your honorable Council that sanitary sewers be installed in the California Avenue and Crumley Avenue Sanitary Sewer District A911-58-4, City of West Covina, as a measure necessary to the protection of public health. Since the date of this recommendation, an alteration has been made in the boundaries of this proposed sanitary sewer district, namely, the addition of the area west of Valinda Avenue and south of C,.C. 3-28-60 Page Twenty -One STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT - continued Vine Avenue, including Bubbling Well Road, Truman Place and -other streets as shown on the attached map. This alteration in boun- daries has not affected the sewerage disposal problems -and if anything, these problems have increased due to the elapsed period of time "On March 3, 1960 this department made an investigation of this :;reccntly'.added,:area.. During the course of this investigation' 20 house -to -house -calls were made. Of this number, 5 occupants were not at home or did not answer the door. Of the 15 property owners, or tenants, actually contacted, 8 or 53-1/3% reports having experienced trouble with individual subsurface sewerage disposal systems. During the course of our first investigation of this proposed sanitary sewer district 113 house -to -house calls were made. Of this number, 45 occupants were not at home or did not answer the door. Of the 68 property owners, or tenants, actually contacted 16 or 23J,% reported having experienced trouble with individual subsurface sewerage disposal systems. In view of. the fact revealed by our survey I, the undersigned health officer of the County of Los Angeles, .having been officially designated by the City Council of the City of West Covina to perform public health services for the City of West Covina, do hereby again recommend proceedings be instituted at once for the construction of sanitary sewers in California Avenue and Crumley Avenue, Sanitary Sewer District A111-58-4, City of West Covina, as shown on the attached map. This recommendation is made as an improve- ment necessary to the protection of public health and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808 of the Streets and Highways Code." Signed ROY Oo GILBERT, M. D. Health Officer Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried, that the report of the County Health Officer be accepted and spread in full upon the Minutes and the City Engineer be directed to proceed pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808, Division 4, of the Streets and Highways Code. RESOLUTION NO. 1796 District A111-58-4 Sanitary Sewers necessary as a health measure ADOPTED Mayor Brown-. The City Clerk presented-. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA THAT THE CON- STRUCTION OF CERTAIN SANITARY SEWERS IS NECESSARY AS A HEALTH MEASURE IN CALI- FORNIA AVENUE AND CRUMLEY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT (A°11-58-4) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows-. Ayes-. Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes-.- None Absent-. None Said Resolution was given No, 1796 C.C. 1-28-60 Page Twenty -Two DONNA BETH SEWER'S SS-8 LOCATION., Donna Beth -Avenue and Accept Sewer Facilities Michelle Street approved Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and ­' carried, that .sewer facilities in SS-8 be accepted and authorization be given for release of the bond no sooner than 35 days from date of acceptance. PRECISE PLAN NO. 13, LOCATION., Glendora Avenue -and Vine PART II Avenue (Von's Market) Accept Sewer Facilities APPROVED Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and carried - that sewer facilities in Precise Flan No. 13, Part II, be accepted and authorization be given for the release of the bond no sooner than 35 days from date of acceptance. GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Howard Jones I am president of the West Covina Demo- 1315 California Avenue cratic Club and have been instructed West Covina to come before Council to present a resolution relative to the West Covina Chamber of Commerce participating in politics. Mr. Jones read,the resolution indicated which was filed with the City Clerk, We are not -here to argue the pros and cons of federal aid to schools legislation, -The basis of this whole thing is that we are not object- ing to the Chamber of Commerce or the business people, or whoever happens to have their point of view, but we do not want it done wilh the dollars placed in the budget by the City for their use. City funds are used to support the Chamber of Commerce of the City. We learned the Chamber of Commerce was against federal aid to education bill. No organization financially supported in part or in the whole by the City should assert its influence over the citizens on particu- lar political matters, and they shouldn't be supported by public funds to do so. They should make no stand with the support of public funds on any current political issues so as to give an idea of being supported in that by the City on such political issues. We request the City, through the Council, to withhold and withdraw any -further financial support or expenditures of public funds. Recently the Chamber sponsored a man of the year at the South Hills Country Club who was a candidate for public office and the master of ceremonies was a candidate for national public office. I.do not think this was right to take public funds for such undertakings. We have no objection to there 'being a Chamber of Commerce but we brought this to Mr. Kasem's attention and when he wrote to the newspaper and to the Mayor he........... Mayor Brown., I would like to state here and now that I have never received a letter from Mr. Kasem, I know the man personally and was in attendance at a banquet where he wasjresent a week prior to the incident and if there was any such letter addressed to me I never received it. C. Co 3-28-60 Page Twenty -Three ORAL COMMUNICATIONS _ continued, Mr, Jones- I have a copy here showing a copy going to the Mayor; Mr. Kasem is a taxpayer in the City and he protested as a taxpayer and stated his reasons. Mayor Brown- Is there any discussion on this? I. agree with Mr. Jones 100% that the Chamber of Commerce is dabbling in politics against our contract and if they don't change their ways in 30 days all City allocations should be withdrawn. Councilman Pittenger- Usually members of Council speak first before the Mayor, but since this has not been the case I will go ahead and speak anyway. When we allocated funds to the Chamber we did it for services rendered and we asked them to stay out of local politics. Any Chamber of - Commerce is entitled to express on State or National issues on a non- partisan basis. I do not know what their resolution said that implied it wasn't non®partisan. I am opposed to the bill and would go along with them 100% and if Mr. Kasem was representing this community and this State he, too, would be against it, but that is another issue. I do not think anything is going to be resolved by having any party come in and tell the Chamber of Commerce what to do and it is up to us to work with them to tell them it is offensive and work it out with them. I think the advantages offset any detriment. Mr, Simons I protest this as a citizen in that 112 No Juniper this is a political arm of the Republi- West Covina can Party.to sponsor their idea. If they are against subsidy why ask to be subsidized in their own business. Further, the Democratic leaders in this area have done their best to keep our people out of partisan politics and have done this for a pur- pose as it was not felt that a growing City should be "rip sawed" by the two political parties. We knew Council gave money to the Chamber of Commerce and we didn't protest because we -thought that some of those present would see that the Chamber wouldn't enter into any of these national politics. It isn't enough to say you will see to it, these things will be accomplished when perhaps your political feelings ride with these groups'. Many people in the City do not own businesses and are not in favor of giving money to the Chamber of Commerce to help. It is a personal opinion that you feel they have given service. We object to the using of taxpayers' money to use it for their own benefits to make public statements. It is not a non -partisan state- ment, it is the feelings of the Republican Party and the majority of them support it. Mr, L. McCartney I go on record as being in accord with 1839 E. Rowl-dnd what has been said by Mr. Simons and West Covina Mr, Jones. I am doing this as a citizen and taxpayer and not as a Democrat. I have no children in school but I want to see every child have a fair rattle and roll to get3an education and it takes public money to do•ito. Some rich people send their child to public schools and I want every child to have .a chance for an edu- cation. I think it is disgraceful when a public group as the Chamber makes a statement to deny a child an,education by stating they do not want public subsidy. C. C. 3-28-60 Page Twenty -Four ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - continued Councilman Heath.- I agree with the Mayor.- When this -- budget was discussed it was unanimously • agreed in Council that-the-Chambdr was to stay out of politics and I understood it to mean -local, Federal, -or State, or any other type. I am evidently under a misapprehens'i6ri"be— cause I believe the Chamber of Commerce explans its duty as an organi- zation for the benefi t of business and the City from a business or commerce angle. Maybe I am translating the meaning of this,,Chamber differently than what has been interpreted. However, I think Councilman Pittenger's suggestion is good and we should meet with them. We had heard about this unofficialy-,but now, wehave it officially and I think we should sit down with themland find out what their aims are as to their feeling concerning local, State and Federal government and politics in general and if different from what our interpretation is, we should have some type of understand- ing and if we find out it is definitely dabbling in politics I think then we must consider their budget. I am in favor of a meeting with the Chamber and Council. Councilman Barnes: I think Councilmen Heath and Pittenger have said it all. I believe we should sit down with the Chamber Board of Directors and try to get across to them what we feel we meant by their. services. I believe we said to stay out of politics and nothing :Was mentioned whether it was local, State or Federal, but we didn't want them into politics as such. I support them to bring new business into our City and to support better business in our City. I think I would like to,sit down with the Board of Directors of the Chamber and discuss this thoroughly with them. Mrs. Van Dame,. In speaking of the Chamber of Commerce you are speaking of more than one person, yet I get the idea of implica- tion from the residents they are blaming Mr. La Belle. Mayor Brown: No., if anybody should be criticized it is the Board and Mr. La Belle only carries out what has been laid out for him. Mr. La Belle may have written the resolution but that has nothing to do with the "man of the year" and other parties introduced while others were not. Mrs. Van Dame,. The Chamber of Commerce is non -partisan and should have the chance to say what they want. Mayor Brown- This matter was passed as a Board not as members as a whole. Councilman Pittenger: The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce not only takes issue with Federal government issues but with the City of Los Angeles political issues. I do not think -we should stop business men just because they are business men. We have given money but they have given us full value received if nothing but bringing business together and the business districts together and that figures larger than we realize. i C., C. 3-28-60 ORAL.COMMUNICATIONS - continued Page Twenty -Five Mayor Brown, Unfortunately some people in the Chamber of Commerce saw how to light on this and make it partisan politics. If this represented the Chamber when this was done this wouldn't have happened. Councilman Mottinger: I think that we have, in the heat of the political debate, rushed into this whole situation with entirely too much abandon. The Chamber resolution, as I interpret it, was a study made of_the economic implications of the measure that was being considered. I=:.wouldn°t attempt to discuss the merits or the .faults of that parti- cular plan, but I think if they had in.mind the economic implications on:our community, I think that is what we have given them to do and what we are paying them for. It wasn't a political implication until it was jumped on as the opportunity allowed. A lot of "political hay" is.being made and everybody wants to be heard. The basis behind this was on an economic basis to our community and is still sound and I.do not think they would be doing their job if they didn't take it:.into consideration. I,:am,not adverse to taking this up with the Chamber Board. It may be a, misunderstanding of their commitments and our considerations but I think the thing can be carried too far when there are political cam- LPO:igns� being pressed. Mayor Brown, I think it should be talked out, although I am not in favor of federal aid myself, but they should stay out of politics. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that a'committee of at least two Councilmen meet with a like committee of the Chamber of Commerce - the two men who we know will be on the Council. Mayor Brown appointed Councilman Heath and offered to serve with Councilman Heath on the committee to meet with the Chamber of Commerce directors to resolve this matter and report to the Council. V.F.W. HALL OCCUPANCY Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried, that the V.F.W..be granted a temporary occupancy permit for 60 days subject to the approval of a revised Precise Plan. CITY.MANAGER REPORTS REQUEST OF WEST COVINA LOCATION, Monte Vista School on Eldred SCHOOL'DISTRICT FOR Street and Coronado School at STREET. LIGHTS Vine Avenue and Walnut • West. Covina School District requests q permission to install three light,s.at Monte Vista School and three lights at Coronado School. Held over from meeting of March 14, 1960. Mr. A.iassa, cost in the neighborhood complete analysis of all p"2a:n needs. The City is paying $2,900.00 a year for lighting but eventually if the master plan for said lighting goes in, it will of $8,695.00 to $9,000.00 a year; that is a existing school areas according to master Ce:C. 3-28-60 Page Twenty -Six STREET LIGHTS - WEST COVINA SCHOOL DISTRICT - continued Councilman Barnes: The recommendation is that possibly" the school districts share in this cost • of lighting. It is taxpayers' money no matter whose pocket it comes out of. Mayor Brown; I think the school district should help share, yes, but in some areas it is indicated people will be assessed who are adjacent to the lighting. Mr, Aiassa: It isn't possible to put a school dis- trict in a lighting district but they can contribute to the costs when they receive benefits. We haven't been able to get any money for traffic guardsand lots of cities use traffic fund completely. Councilman Barnes: We have so many places to use traffic safety funds for signals, crossing .guards, etc., and I feel it is only right the schools should participate in paying part of this lighting costa Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the City Manager be authorized to meet with the two school boards and see what might be worked out, and also Covina Union High School District, relative to school participating in street light- ing cost. ZONE VARIANCE NO. 306 This site is located where the building burned down across the street from the West Covina Hospital, west of the hos- pital on the Orange underpass. They are negotiating to buy a piece of surplus land from the State. Dr. Gordon wants to purchase the surplus State property so that he has three consistent lots in height and width. PROJECT C-120 This was in relation to the South Hills Country Club and Council has received written reports from Mr. Dosh and the City Engineer, City participation is the same as figured before. It is about the same basis as presented in the outlined tentative proposal.- complete east and west side with total approximate cost of $16,000.00. The Country Club is agreeable to the terms. We will have to budget the City°s share in our 1960-61 budget allocation!:. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and carried, that the Mayor and City Clerk sign the agreement relative to Project C-120 and that we budget funds in our proposed budget of 1960-61. DRAINAGE INLETS Council has received copies of this and AS AMENDED the only variation is the Service Avenue inlet on the south side. We would like to submit this to the flood control authorities. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that the City Manager be authorized to submit the report relative to drainage inlets dated March 25, 1960, to the County Flood Control, as amended, for the insertion into the master improvement plan of storm drain inlets. C. ,C. 3-28-60 Page Twenty -Seven STREET NAME'SIGNS The Engineering office has developed a procedure for subdivision improvements which includes a procedure for prospec- tive street sign payments and eventually to apply the same principle for installation of street trees. Councilman Barnes: If we are going to take over street planning and street signs and let sub- dividers deposit the money, does it mean going into a program to.have extra men to put up these signs and plant the trees? Mr..4iassa: We are going through that program as the subdivider gives us money to put up signs. Councilman Barnes: But this might be more extreme. Mr. Aiassa: This tree situation alone is extremely trying to provide adequate care of trees that are of improper planting and wrong type. They have limited tree types but have provided a selection for the citizens to select from, Councilman Heath: I think the tree list for the City should be revised, Mr. Aiassa: You are the representative to the Park Commission and perhaps it is a matter you should discuss with them. ECONOMIC RESEARCH PROJECT There will be statistical data avail- able from the U. So Census Bureau and it might be well to get this data to- gether regarding future and existing development. Perhaps this should be'turned over to the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Mottinger: Go over this with the Chamber of Commerce and see if they are interested and come back with any recommendations that might be indicated. Councilman Heath: I think there is a study the Chamber could do that might be helpful to the City. Have them investigate the reasons for so many empty houses in the City. It should be a concern of Council as to why'this might be happening, whether it; is a result of high taxation or moving because going into higher wage brackets. If it is due to some detrimental thing I think we should know this. Mayor Brown: we,should make it a report Such a study might be good but the real estate board, as much as the Cham- ber, should have information. Possibly through both agencies. Councilman Heath: I left out the real estate board because I felt they might be prejudiced. Repre- sentatives of the Chamber could go to these houses and ask questions to see if they could arrive at an answer of the possible whys and wherefores. Councilman Pittenger: I.think this. is something in the whole Valley, not just in the City, and a study should be made in comparison to the whole area. LJ C. C. 3-28-60 STUDY ON VACANT HOUSES - continued Page Twenty -Eight The City Clerk was directed to send a letter to the Chamber relative to discussion on this matter, REFUND ON BUILDING PERMIT Requirement for such request -is within 60 days and this was taken out July 21, 1959. Councilman Mottinger: I understood the contractor took out the permit then nothing happened and the contract was cancelled. If the time for permitting refund has elapsed then it is the responsibility of the person making the contract to reimburse the contractor in that case. Mr. Aiassa: We still had the work of going through plans and other City procedures on it. TREASURER'S REPORT Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded .by Councilman Mottinger and carried, that the Treasurer's Report.for February, 1960, be accepted and filed for the record. C-R ZONING CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. 1797 Denying Zone Variance (Eichstaedt) ADOPTED Mayor Brown: Public hearing to be held April 11,1960. The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DENYING SIGN VARIANCE" (Eichstaedt) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that said.Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes Noes: Councilman Heath, Mayor Brown Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1797 RESOLUTION'NO. 1798 The City Attorney presented: Amending portion of "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Master Plan- 'of- Streets AMENDING PORTION. OF MASTER PLAN OF and Highways STREETS AND HIGHWAYS RELATING TO THE ° i ADOPTED ALIGNMENT OF MERCED AVENUE AT ITS INTER- SECTION WITH GLENDORA AVENUE" (PLAN F) Councilman Pittenger: We discussed taking out the section that laid east of Glendora. Mayor Brown: The original motion passed on a split 3=2 vote at the meeting on February 23, 1960, and the City Attorney was directed to brim in the proper resolution. This resolution was then a tie vote on March 14, 1960, as Councilman Mottinger was not present, and so failed on tie vote. C, Co 3-28-60 RESOLUTION NO. 1798 —continued Councilman Heath; Councilman Barnes; Page Twenty -Nine This includes the entire alignment or stops at Glendora? The entire alignment, stopping -at Glendora was defeated in previous motions on February 23, 1960. Councilman Mottinger; The way it was acted upon by Council, aliikough divided vote, was to approve the alignment along the one suggested (F). Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Mayor Brown, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion failed on roll call as follows: Ayes; Councilman Mottinger, Mayor Brown Noes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Barnes Absent; None - Councilman Pittenger; We are trying to make this alignment to Glendora and drop it there. We do not have money to carry it further and won't put money in the budget next year to do so, so why jeopardize the man's property by placing this alignment on it? Go back to alignment to Glendora. Ultimately, we may go through, but other than that I do not think we should take action. We didn't plan to buy property through there, we assumed we would get a dedicated street.through there. Councilman Mottinger: do not feel it would to anybody Maybe the City is running into danger at some future date and will be caught with more expense at a future date. I. good or ill to stop Merced at Glendora. Mr. Williams indicated he had made the change in the resolution indi- cated by Council discussion; that is, to stop Merced Avenue from the west at Glendora. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion failed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Pittenger, Mottinger Noes; Councilmen Heath, Barnes, Mayor Brown Absent; None Councilman Barnes: I would state this same motion failed on a prior hearing on February 23, 1960. Councilman Heath; What are we buying by putting this in? Mayor Brown: Not buying anything just allowing the subdivider to put something on his land. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that said Resolution as to that part of Merced Avenue lying west of Glendora be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows; Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Mayor Brown Noes; Councilmen Barnes Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1798 Co C. 3-28-60 RESOLUTION NO. 1798 ®.continued Page Thirty The body of the Resolution was read by the City Attorney. Indications of Council were, as a final matter of discussions that the Resolution • was passed relative to stopping the alignment of Merced,.west of Glendora, with no further consideration of continuing at present RESOLUTION NO, 1799 The City Attorney presented: Approving Precise Plan "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF of Design No. 215 THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING A ADOPTED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 215 AND GRANTING VARIANCE NO, 308 (De Pietro) Mayor Brown. Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Heathy seconded by Councilman Barnes, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heathy Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Mottinger Said Resolution was given No, 1799 INTRODUCTION An Ordinance rezoning certain property Mayor Brown: The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 140-150 ROBERTO AVENUE AND 1523-1545 DENNIS PLACE". (Frank De Pietro) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion,by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that the Ordinance be introduced and given its first reading, RESOLUTION NO, 1800 Granting a sign variance ADOPTED Mayor Brown: The City Attorney presented: "A'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA GRANTING A SIGN VARIANCE" (West Covina Enter- prises, Inc.) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Heathy seconded by Councilman Pittenger, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heathy Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Mottinger Said Resolution was given No, 1800 • C. C. 3-28-60 Page Thirty -One RESOLUTION NO, 1801 The City Attorney presented: Granting Unclassified "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Use Permit No. 41 THE CITY OF WEST COVINA GRANTING ADOPTED UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 4111 (Ferned Corp.) Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Pittenger, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows. 'Ayes. Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mayor Brown Noes: Barnes Absent: None Abstaining: Councilman Mottinger Said Resolution was given No. 1801 SPRING,MEETING OF CITY ATTORNEYS Monterey - April 25 and 26, 1960 Motion by Councilman Pittenger, sec- onded by Councilman Mottinger, that the City Attorney be authorized to attend with expenses not to exceed one-half of the expense cost. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None INTERIM COMMITTEE STUDY Oakland, California Relative to laws on annexation and incorporation. Mr. Williams had been invited to attend. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried, that the City Attorney attend this interim committee study at Oakland. CITY.CLERK RESOLUTION OF Re. Initiation of an area development CHAMBER OF COMMERCE study of the community, and commending the City Councilaad the Planning Commission for the initiating of such study. REQUEST OF SUNKIST Circus and carnival held April 22, 1960. SCHOOL PTA Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that approval of this request be granted, subject to the in- vestigation by City Attorney and City departments. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 58 Notification from County Boundary OF CITY OF INDUSTRY Commission. No protests 140 Co C. 3-28-60 Page Thirty -Two PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF Notification from Board of Supervisors CITY OF NORPARK No protests. (El MonteArea) APPLICATION FOR The City Clerk requested withdrawal of TAXICAB LICENSE this matter until meeting of April llth (Herbert S. Meisel) since there is no affidavit of publica- tion in the newspaper which is now re- quired by ordinance relative to this type of applicAtion. ON -SALE BEER LICENSE 16211 W. Garvey Boulevard (Ferrera) No action necessary, but will be subject to Police report. LOT SPLIT ON MERCED AVENUE Metes and Bounds Subdivision No.135-154 Held over for report. COMMENTS BY MRS. VAN DAME Where are the direction signs in the City? I have looked all over the City Hall area and haven't seen one yet. Mr. Aiassa asked Mr. Dosh to take Mrs. Van Dame on a tour to show her the signs are up and plentiful. Mrs...VAn;..DaMe. Why.are you all so hard headed about this half-step out by the coke machine? Mayor Brown-, If you raise the step higher it makes it higher than is safe. Mrs. Van Dame: You should continue it as a step instead of making it a half-step. Can't you have some kind of flowering trees in the City intead of the weeping willows all around? Mayor Brown: Flowering trees make more clean-up work. Mrs. Van Dame: .-What about authorizing an increase in the Planning Commission salary to $5.00 more a meeting? Councilman Pittenger: Absolutely not, they are overpaid now. Mayor Brown: There might be two new men on the Commission come election time. Councilman Heath: Should we amend the present resolution on the alignment of Merced to the present location of Merced to the east of Glendora? Mayor Brown: That particular piece had no considera- tion and wasn't discussed at any public hearings, Mr. Williams: You can't adopt it as part of the plan, it is a gap. 0 C- C. 3-28-60 Page Thirty -Three Mayor Brown- It has to go back to public hearing to get it on the plan. Councilman Mottinger- No consideration was given immediately east of Glendora. Mayor Brown: You must have public hearing to put the piece back in. Mr, Aiassa- By this Resolution as adopted the issue is back where it was before, DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that Demands in the amount of $113,434.78, as shown on Demand Sheets C-190 and C-191 be approved. This includes fund transfers in the amount of $69,112.27. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes- Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown .Noes: None Absent: None EAST SAN GABRIEL PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting at La Puente on March 31, 1960, Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried, that the meeting be adjourned at 11-55 Po M. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED Mayor March 28, 1960 - Approved as corrected as follows: Page 3 - The motion under Precise Plan No. 42 should show the date of June 27, 1961, instead of June 27, 1960, as indicated,