Loading...
06-27-1960 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY .OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA June 27, 1960 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Heath -at 7:35 P. M. in the___ 'hest Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Browne with the invocation presented by Rev. Koosman of Christ Lutheran Church. ROLL:.1:CALL ': Present: Others...Present: APPROVAL .OF...M INUTES May 23, 1960 June ;6 9, 1960 June 13, 1960 Mayor Heath, Councilmen Brown, Towner Barnes, Snyder Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Mr, Robert Flotten, City Clerk Mr. Henry C. Williams, City Attorney Mr, Thomas Dosh, Public Service Director Mr, Harold Joseph, Planning Coordinator Approved As submitted Approved as submitted Approved as submitted Mr. Robert Gingrich presented and introduced to the Mayor and members of Council,. Mr. Oscar Ospaz, a Cuban visitor studying the City of West Covina recreation program. Mr. Ospaz stated that when he arrived in this country in April he was asked to visit West Covina. and that he had looked on the.map and.could not find out its location, but that now, upon being in the City, he knew why he had been asked to come here. It is a young city, with a young recreation program, and he can see how a recreation program can grow up the same as the City and that there is.a very fine recreational program here in West Covina. Mayor Heath welcomed the -visitor on behalf of the City and City Council and stated that the City was quite proud.of',its Recreation and Park Department and Commission in that they are somewhat handicapped because of finances, but in.spite of that handicap they are doing a very nice job, sire very capable and it is hoped that they can present some pertin- ent and interesting information to take back. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS RESOLUTION -NO. 1878 Accepting Grant. Deed Precise Plan No. 26 (Shulman.'IDevelopment) ADOPTED The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILOFTHE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF" LOCATION- Northwest corner of California, Avenue and Walnut Creek Parkway., For street and highway purposes to be known as Walnut Creek Parkway, Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the. Resolution. C. C. 6-27-60 RESOLUTION -NO. 1878 - continued Page `Two Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman-Towner,�that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call.as follows... u Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None • Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1878 ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF City Manager Aiassa: -Copies have been REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS presented to members of Council and"I, ACCEPTED would like to recommend to the Council to accept the report but to delay the approval of payment of reimbursement`funds until the.:.next meeting in order for Council to completely review the reimbursements as listed. Motion by.Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that the Annual Report on Status of Reimbursement Agreements be accepted. Councilman Towner: As I understand it, we are withholding approval of payment. City Manager Aiassa: We would like to have Council look over all the reimbursements so that if there are any questions, .whatevoT ;may.. be questionable can be deleted or added by the next meeting. v TRIP TO SACRAMENTO Mayor Heath: Since it is not yet 8:00 o°clock, I would like to take the oppor- tunity at this time to report on the - recent trip to Sacramento on Thursday. Assemblyman Ron. °Cameron; . Cityy, =.<: Manager:.Gdorge AiassA, , Harold,-°Johnson.y-:.-Consult*ng'Epgineer;.:,;and myself, went to Sacramento at that time to speak to the State Highway Department on their participation in the bridge construction on Glendora Avenue. I felt that the City staff and the City Manager had prepared a very'. good report, in fact one of the State Highway Commissioners at an open meeting stated that the material was complete, concise and very well. presented. At first I could sense the feeling of the Commission in that it was not in favor of participating, but with the explanations presented by the City Manager and Mr. Johnson, and by the continued pushing, repeti- tion and explanation of our Assemblyman, Mr'. Cameron, the State Highway Commission voted to participate to the extent of $46,000.00. I think the City staff should be commended and that George Aiassa, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Cameron should be highly complimented; it was a very nice job done. PLANNING COMMISSION METES & BOUNDS SUBDIVISION LOCATION: South side of Merced Avenue, - NO. 135-168 (T.R.Worrell) between Shadydale and Evanwood Avenues. APPROVED -AS STIPULATED 0.86 Acres - 3 Lots - Area District II Approval recommended by Planning Commission on June 1, 1960. Held over from meeting of June 13, 1960 for recommendation from City Engineer and field trip by Council. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Three METES & BOUNDS SUB. NO. 135-168 - continued City Clerk Flotten stated that Council should notice that there were two different maps before them, one is used as an example and the other is the actual subdivision. • The report of Mr. Dosh was read. Councilman Towner: I understand the subdivision submitted to us is the one with the blue lines and the red lines drawn on the other map are the recommendations of the City staff. City Manager Aiassa: That is correct. Councilman Towner: It appears the map as submitted would be materially sub -standard and it also appears that the recommendations of the City staff are feasible and provide suitable development, although it is still somewhat sub -standard. As I recall the applicant's comments at the last meeting, it was indi- cated by him this wouldn't be economically feasible. However, it has been done before and so far as I am concerned rather than permit this to come in as proposed we should go with the staff recommendations. Councilman Barnes: I went down on Saturday and took a look at this property. I do not think the section "not a part" of this area would present any problems later as I had thought at the last meeting. To the west, it is all subdivided and there is a block wall all around the parcel. However, I do not think we should go in with sub -standard streets and the City staff recommendation should be carried through in this area for the other three lots because we will have something in which the street sweepers can't get into and a problem to the City. Councilman Snyder: I took a look at it too, and the red line indicated offers one solution, but maybe there are other solutions. I would rather see an up -standard street go in there with four possible lots, one a possible sub -standard lot. It would be easier to grant by variance on sub -standard lot than to have a sub -standard street setting a precedent if this would be approved. Possibly it should be sent back to the Planning Commission for the submission of another drawing. I think there might be several ways for this to be done, not necessarily this one. Councilman Towner: I would assume the City staff considered possibilities and feel this is the most feasible. The recommendations of the Commission were re -read by the City Clerk. Councilman Towner: Why did the Commission delete the staff recommendation No. 8? Councilman Brown: The reason for No. 8 being deleted is that the Commission felt if this map were approved they didn't want the street dedicated to the City, they wanted a private street. I would have to go along with the City staff recommendations on this. C. C. 6-27-60 METES & BOUNDS SUB. NO. 135-168 - continued Page Four Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-168 be approved, subject to - the recommendations of the Planning Commission with the further stipu- lation that Condition No. 8 of the City staff recommendations be • reinstated. Councilman Snyder: I still feel that possibly a better map could be drawn on this, but if you feel'' this is the best it could come up with.... SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS GASOLINE REQUIREMENTS Bids were received at 10:00 A. M., June' 23, 1960, in the office of the City Clerk, as advertised, and referred to the City Clerk for recommendations to the City Council. Notice of Publication had been received from the West Covina Tribune on June 9, 1960. Bids were as follows: PATHFINDER PETROLEUM COMPANY TEXACO, INC. UNION OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA RICHFIELD OIL CORP. TIDEWATER OIL CO. SHELL OIL CO. STANDARD OIL OF CALIFORNIA 'SEASIDE OIL CO. MOBIL OIL CO. WILSHIRE OIL CO. Premium Ethyl 98 .2128 Sky Chief .2178 Royal 76 .2189 Boron 100 } .2211 Flying "A'• .2329 Super Shell .2395 Chevron Supreme .2415 Seaside Ethyl .2480 No proposal submitted No proposal submitted All bids included Bid Bond, 10% Bid Bond or Certified Check. The staff°s recommendation was for the bid to go to Texaco, Inc, Sky Chief at .2178. City Manager Aiassa stated this was recommended in that Pathfinder Petroleum Company was Premium Ethyl 98 while all other bids were pre- sented at 100% octane. Councilman Towner: City Attorney Williams: Is it permissible to take the next lowest bid on the idea of two -tenths less octane? You could take the Texaco bid because they are not bidding on an identical product. Councilman Brown: I do not think that'two points of octane would make that much difference. Councilman Towner: This is the only reason for the recommen- dation of Texaco, Inc? There are no problems of delivery or anyting like that? City Manager Aiassa: We have had no previous experience with Pathfinder Petroleum and this would be their first dealing with the City. The staff has no further recommendations. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Five GASOLINE REQUIREMENTS - continued Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that the award of the Gasoline requirements for the fiscal year of 1960-61 be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Pathfinder Petroleum Company, at the amount of $.2128 per gallon, with all other bids and bid bonds or checks to be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to negotiate the contract with the Pathfinder Petroleum Company. ASPHALTIC MATERIAL Bid were received at 10:00 A. M., June 23, REQUIREMENTS 1960, in the office of the City Clerk, as advertised, and referred to the City Engineer for recommendation to the City Council. Bid Price Distance Est. Trans. *East.Trans. **Est.Trans. Est.Total Per Ton (Yard to & Loading Cost Per Cost Per Cost Per Plant) Time (hr.) Load ($) Ton Ton Industrial $3.50 3.5 mi. 0.70 hr. $2.31 $0.46 $3.96 Asphalt Graham Bros. 3.50 6.6 mi. 1.00 hr. 3.30 0.66 4.16 Associated 3.75 4.4 mi. .80 hr. 2.64 0.63 4.28 Asphalt *Cost of Truck Cost of Man Sub Total 10% overhead Total Cost **Assume 5 ton load $1.00 per hour 2.00 '• it 3.00 per hour .30 $3.30 per hour Notice of Publication had been received from the West Covina Tribune on June 9, 1960. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that the bid for Asphaltic material as required for the fiscal year of 1960-61 be awarded to Industrial Asphalt, f.o.b. their plant in Irwindale, California. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to negotiate the contract with Industrial Asphalt. C.C. 6-27-60 LEGAL ADVERTISING Clerk for recommendation to Page Six Bids were received at 10:00 A. M., June 23, 1960, in the office of the City Clerk as advertised and referred to the City the City Council. Notice of publication had been received from the West Covina Tribune on •June 9, 1960. Bids were as follows: WEST COVINA TRIBUNE Per column inch - First insertion $ 1.77 Per column inch - Subsequent insertions 1.63 Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that legal advertising bid for the fiscal year starting July 1, 1960, be awarded to the West Covina Tribune at $1.77 per column inch for the first inser- tion and $1.63 per column inch for subsequent insertions. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to negotiate the contract with the West Covina Tribune. HEARINGS PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO To cover installation of sanitary sewers CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS in the Service Avenue, Barbara Avenue IN SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT and St. Malo Street Sewer District. Set A111-57-6 for hearing this date in the "Notice of HEARING HELD OVER Filing Assessment and Diagram" dated TO 7/7/60 June 3, 1960. Mayor Heath: The hour of 8:00 o'clock P. M. having arrived, this is the time and place for hearing protests or objections against the assessment for improvement of Service Avenue, Barbara Avenue and other streets in the City of West Covina. Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavits of publication, posting and mailing? City Clerk Flotten: We have the affidavits. Mayor Heath: I will entertain a motion to have these affidavits received and filed. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that the affidavits of publication, posting and mailing be received and filed. Mayor Heath: Mr. City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections against a the assessment, the improvement as con- structed, or the proceedings? City Clerk Flotten: We have, and they are as follows: C. C. 6-27-60 Page Seven A111-57-6 - PROTEST HEARING - continued Mrs. Florence Irish - 513 S. Lark Ellen Avenue - dated June 16, 1960 Mr. Paul A. Enders - 504 S. Lark Ellen Avenue - dated June 20, 1960. Mr. William Krueger - 946 Blue Ash Road --dated June 22, 1960 Mr. William Dodds - 737 S. Craig Drive - dated June 27, 1960 Mr. Oscar Moser - 741 Craig Drive - dated June 25, 1960 • Mr. George M. Messenger - 603 S. Lark Ellen Avenue - dated June 25,1960 A communication dated June 27, 1960, signed by Mr. James E. Hurst of 721 Craig Drive, Mr. Herman Zaal of 725 Craig Drive, Mr. Elwood Parkman of 733 Craig Drive and Mr. Ted Meyer of 726 Craig Drive. The above communications were read in full by the City Clerk. Mayor Heath: Mrs. Irish 513 S. Lark Ellen Avenue Mr. Rosetti: Councilman Brown: assessment is fair and equal asked the City Attorney if I here and he stated "no", only Does anyone in the audience desire to speak in behalf of these written protests? I would like to know how the contractor bases his price. Is it so much per foot for digging the ditch and so much a foot for the line laid? I am representing the assessment engineer, Mr. Thompson. Before the assessment engineer starts I would indicate that I own property in the district and I do not think the from the beginning of this district. I would be disqualified due to owning property that I let my interests be known. Mr. George Messenger I would like to give one general comment. 603 S. Lark Ellen Avenue This notice was served upon me by post- card and at this time I was given $1,001.15 as an assessment. I went to the City Hall, Sanitation Department, and asked for details relative to this figure. With respect to it they could not supply me with detailed information only beyond what was supplied to them by the assessment engineer. They could speculate why this amount was indicated but could give no exact answer. I can't give a precise argument in protest of any phase until all the details are known and therefore I think there is a procedural error and is the same situation as a court of law when you find out from the Judge what you are being charged with and there has been a procedural error in not having all the facts on which these assessments were based. I asked to contact the assessment engineer but was requested not do so so, as he would be present tonight, and after hearing this for the first time I would like to prepare my arguments. Mr. Rosetti: First, I think it might be an advantage to explain how assessments are made in this particular case and"in the areas of California generally. Mr. Thompson works for about 40 cities and has worked out a procedure and method which the people would buy the majority of times. In West Covina we have quite a problem in relation to the methods of the way lots are cut up. You take the entire cost of the project, come up with a figure that people can understand, using assessable front footage,although sometimes you use acreage basis such as the church property. They have acreage in the rear but feel that sometimes acreage, due to the large amount of money that must be spent to develop it, doesn't get such a heavy assessment as they would have to dedicate 50 feet of street, pave it, put in more sewer line, and at the present time more than half is used for parking for the benefit of the church. C. C. 6-27-60 o Page Eight A111-57-6 - PROTEST HEARING - continued Mr. Rosetti - continued: We have gone through the entire district and come up with what we feel is acceptable by taking front footage of each parcel of land in the area. Divide that by the cost of the project and come up with front • footage cost. You also have to take into consideration certain sewer design - method — of design by the engineers. In one particular case here there was men- tion of 160 feet and we took that sewer design under consideration be- fore the assessment of that 160 feet. Had the house been located a little differently, there would not have had to be built 50 feet more of sewer line in front of that 130 feet on one and the 160 feet on the other. If houses were closer to adjoining properties the sewer would not have had to go 50 or 60 feet further down the street to accommodate an outlet of the 160 feet frontage. There are other cases where there is a particular sewer line down the middle of the street and then you come to a cul-de-sac and you have to come off with four branches of lateral. As to the sewer running in front of the property 98 x 212, there was constructed 212 feet across the property to sewer him and adjacent property. Those are things taken into consideration when making assessments., As to the Irish property, this parcel is one lot coming across the Wash. Mrs. Irish: the Wash. The property across Mr. Rosetti: I was told it came to the center of the Wash. The property has a 30 foot ease- ment and the property doesn't go across the street, yes, but not on my property. That is what the County shows and the map of the City Engineer shows. There is 165 feet at this point to the Wash or concrete bridge, 183 feet deep, and the house is located so that another lot can be added in there. They are already filling in this area and I checked the map and assume this is correct. There is 131 feet on the other side of Lark Ellen. The frontage on these lots is 541, 54' and 561, and 160 feet from this point to this point is the church. The church has one building and an entrance for parking. The sewer itself, if there was normal develop- ment of these pieces of property here, the same as 541, 54' and 561, would terminate here and would cover most of the portion of the property. The church we felt had 160 feet complete frontage. To develop the area in the back would require approximately 60 feet of road going in there and then the sewer all the way back. I do not know of any other way of getting at the back of the property. Councilman Barnes: On the lot showing 212 x 98 how did you determine the assessment there should be $1,001.15 and the lot next to it $300.357 Mr. Rosetti: The 60 foot lot is in direct line. The depth doesn't matter because of only 60 feet of frontage. What he is doing with the back part I do not know, but it is not accessible according to this map to any area, he just has depth. This 212 foot lot can be sub- divided and developed into two pieces of property. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Nine A111-57-6 - PROTEST HEARING - continued Councilman Barnes: That is still over $500.00 per lot. Mr. Rosetti: But you have frontage sewer development across the front of this lot and this other one comes up from a point on another street. Mayor Heath: What is the explanation of the two lots, one at $650.75 and the other at $800.00? Mr. Rosetti: Consideration was given on the shorter frontage, but since this is flat land and being possible to develop, it has 50 foot extra sewer to tie into the 160 foot lot house and this 50 feet doesn't benefit anyone else except the 131 foot and the 160 foot lots. Mayor Heath: Why couldn't the 60 x 212 lot be split? Mr. Rosetti: It is landlocked. We go through the entire project and check over the depth first and which way it can be developed, not looking at the property as it is developed at the present time. We felt the $650.75 and the $800.92 lots could be divided, also. We have certain other areas where lots are 115 feet in depth but the County took 40 feet across the back so that they are only 75 feet deep. What are you going to do in that case? The sewer line still has to be built as to the amount of footage in front of property. If the $300.35 lot is not landlocked and can be developed then it can go into something along the lines of the church. Some cities disregard this but when it comes in for division they pay a service charge equal to when the district came in. Mr. Messenger: In trying to find out what is the basis for assessment, evidently there is no single yardstick given so there is no uniform method of assessing. Mr. Rosetti: There is a uniform method, basis is the same, but you have to take the property into consideration that you are going to speak about. Mr.. Messenger: My lot is the 98 x 212 and the other lot next to it is 60 x 212. There is no debate that these lots front on Lark Ellen and always have. At the time I asked the engineer of the City where the connection should be made for this sewer as At this point I have a septic tank in front of my lot. I'was advised that there was no difference where connected but assessment would be on the frontage. Because of this, where they didn't lay the sewer on Lark Ellen, had I insisted on conaction there the City would have had to run about 100 feet to pick up that direction. If I subdivide, in the front there is no connection. I asked the Sanitation Department what would happen if I should sub- divide and it was indicated I would have to tie into the sewer, pay the entire cost including sewer assessment. If this is being assessed under �the supposition I will subdivide, then I would get no benefit for doing it, and if I have been charged for this benefit, to be able to subdivide, I want proof I have had benefit. Also, what is to compel me to split it at the middle if I do subdivide? In fact, there has been no request to subdivide the lot at this time and I do not think the City Council can assume I am going to do so. C. C. 6-27-60 A111-57-6 - PROTEST HEARING - continued Mr. Messenger - continued: Page Ten I have about a half acre and the church one thousand something feet, and if we are working on a basis of maximum economic -development then the church has more of an opportunity than I do, they have 7 acres, - this is less than half. Mr. Rosetti: They are landlocked. Mr. Messenger: I would still like a more detailed answer from the assessment engineer as to the exact method used and for me to have sufficient time to prepare any arguments or answers. Councilman Brown: I think we should hold this over but I also think we should have a better explanation of why the church is being assessed only $800.92 and what basis they are doing this on. There is a special Unclassified Use Permit use here with should take a higher valuation and a higher assessment than R-1. Councilman Snyder: What action can Council take if there isn't agreement with the assessments? Mr. Rosetti: If Council feels there are inequalities they can order modification and a respread of the entire assessment, possibly rais- ing certain pieces of property they feel may not be adequately assessed. Councilman Snyder: It would affect the whole district? Mr. Rosetti: Not necessarily, although we recommend this and stand by this present assessment. City Manager Aiassa: There is the total cost that must be distributed. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that the protest hearing on District A111-57-6 be held over and continued to the adjourned regular meeting of July 7, 1960 at 7:30 P. M. Mayor Heath called a recess. Council reconvened at 9:20 P. M. PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN LOCATION: 253 S. Pima Avenue, between NO. 233 Stuart and Bandy Avenues. (W & T Construction Co.) APPROVED Request for adoption of Precise Plan of Design approved by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 908 of May 18, 1960. Appealed by applicant on May 31, 1960, objecting to requirement No. 7 of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 908. *Maps were presented by the City Clerk, the Planning Commission Resolution was read, and it was stated that the record should show that the notice of public hearing appeared in the West Covina Tribune on June 16, 1960, and 46 notices were mailed to those living in the area. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated Council was acting under Ordinance No. 502 and that all those desiring to present testimony should stand and be sworn in by the City Clerk. C. C. 6-27-60 PRECISE PLAN NO. 233 - continued Mr. P. Egly 151 E. Badillo R-3. The south side, there *upstairs which abut an R-1 Page Eleven I represent the applicant and from the plan you will notice on the northern section of the lot there is anticipated a two-story apartment house which abuts are six units, three downstairs and three development, and houses. The lots have been zoned R-3 for some time and at the time it was pre- sented to the Commission there was no special ordinance nor amendment indicated as to any restriction limiting he of R-3 to -one-story where it abuts R-1. There was a resolution of the Commission that recommended it would be desirable that all R-3 be limited to one-story within 100 feet of an R-1 development, but tonight there is an ordinance which you shall enact this evening, or at some future date, only now relating to this matter. The applicant is willing to abide by all the conditions indicated and will not stand on what is his right to build two-story on the south abutting R-1, but drop six to three units on the south and make one- story and two-story on the north side. If you applied the ordinance that is to be before you, it would be discriminatory to have all this one-story when you compare what is already on the street, and to develop it one -Story means it cannot be developed the same as if it had been presented sooner. To have this all limited to one-story is not, at present, within the confines of the ordinance as it presently exists and would work a hardship. He is perfectly willing to work the southerly most buildings, abutting R-1, to one-story, but the balance of the units on the north side would remain two-story as shown on the plan. Mr. E. Williams of 1147 Cedarbrook Street and Mrs. D. Whittacher of 305 S. Pima Avenue questioned as to how far these buildings would be from their respective properties, and it was indicated that Mrs. Williams' property would be approximately 96 feet and Mrs. Whittacher's about 25 feet. IN REBUTTAL Mr. Egly: It should be indicated the R-1 on the front, east side oflot, would be closer but the majority would be 96 feet away from R-1 and there is not any serious harm to any R-1, except possibly this one, on the south side of the property. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Brown stated that most of the area is already developed R-3, two-story, and didn't see how this could be enforced at this time on this piece of property with the 100 foot setback all the way around on it and that in deleting the two-story section to the south is going a long way with the City. Councilman Towner stated that on this plan there was consideration of pre-existing R-1 development, it could be legally restricted if desired as to height of buildings under the precise plan and it would appear to be highly detrimental to the home at 305 Pime Avenue to have two-story 30 feet away on adjoining property. It was further indicated it might be reasonable to permit perhaps 6 units at the back of the property on the north side,- by back he meant the west, to go up two-story, but that is as much leeway as he could see to give. C. C. 6-27-60 PRECISE PLAN NO. 233 - continued Page Twelve Councilman Barnes indicated he felt there was no ordinance at present actually governing this and prior to this there wouldn't be and hasn't been such restriction on this particular area. The six units to the west, to the back of this property, are single story, protecting most of the people in residential in the area and it is unfortunate that the home at 305 Pima is located so close to this property, but I did not think this property should be deprived of two-story development when those directly across and adjacent have been permitted to develop that way. It wouldn't be reasonable. Councilman Snyder indicated that the restriction of 100 feet next to R-1 of one-story has been a policy that has been"definitely established and that he would go along with Councilman Towner in that he felt it would be very detrimental to the one piece of property directly to the south. Mayor Heath felt that this property at 305 Pima Avenue had been split off the original piece of property and if so the split was large enough for R-1 and the person who owned it must have expected R-1 to go on there and nothing else and the home must be protected. He would like to see the restriction of the apartments to one-story unless the developer wishes to use rear of apartments which are 100 feet from R-1 as two-story. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that. Precise Plan of Design No. 233 be approved, subject to the recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes Absent: None Councilman Brown felt this should be held to look at the site, in that it may be placing themselves in a poor position if this is only two or three lots who cannot develop two -stones as others had, but Councilman Towner stated he felt this did not apply here in that it is a different situation relative to pre-existing homes, and although Councilman Brown stated there is two-story back to single family, Councilman Towner felt that although this was true it was done before any policy was established and if these lots are not built on, this restriction can be placed on, but Councilman Brown was still of the opinion the applicant was being penalized because it was not developed before a new policy or law came in. ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 LOCATION: South side of San Bernardino and Road, between Lark Ellen and Vincent Aves. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 25801 (Moritz Pick) Planning Commission recommended denial APPROVED of request for reclassification from Zone R-1 to Zone C-2 and R-3 and recom- mended denial of the subdivision as pro- posed by its Resolution No. 915 on June 1, 1960. Appealed by applicant on June 6, 1960. .Maps were presented by the City Clerk, the Resolution was read, and it was stated the record should show that there was a notice of this public hearing published in the West Covina Tribune on June 16, 1960, and that 38 notices had been mailed to those living in the area. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated Council was working under Ordinance No. 502 and that all those desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Thirteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 - continued IN FAVOR Mr. A. Sherman A list of signatures was submitted'of 5882 W. Pico 12 of the 14 people who were property Los Angeles owners on the north side of -San Bernardino Road in favor of this zoning. It was stated in the report that the master City zone map showed this property to be R-1. At the Commission there was testimony that the City of Covina and the County were contacted regarding the zoning of this property. The City of Covina, through their master plan, stated they had actually studied properties in the City of West Covina and showed it as R-1. I haven't seen the master plan of West Covina . - adopted showing this future R-1. Existing zoning to the west of pro- perty is I'M". It is true that the existing property on the north side is A-1, 6,000 in the County, but the property was developed many years ago and a change of development is due with better and higher use than A-1 zoning and since this property is extremely deep it is more useful for other zones. To thd east of this property there is R-1 property with a variance for a hospital and buildings are under construction for a medical building. We originally submitted a tentative map that did not conform to City standards and upon the request of the Commission we revised the map so that all street widths meet minimum standards, and we show the use of the rest of the property to the west and how it could be developed if this is approved. We feel the property is ideally suited for C-2 and R-3. We requested the C-2 because there is no other in the City along San Bernardino Road, and feel this is a true and valid statement. The owners have been contacted on this property for the purpose of establishing an office in the area and do not feel this would be a detrimental use to the City of property in the area. This would establish a buffer of 100 feet between R-1 and R-3 and is a feasible plan on how the balance of the property could be developed. IN OPPOSITION Mr. C. K. Hackler I am also speaking for Mr. M. T. Rafferty 4242 Lark Ellen Avenue of 1682.7 'San Bernardino Road. I think some of you know some of the history of the zoning problems in this area. Over the past four years no less than four proceedings have been instigated before the County regarding zoning changes for some type of commercial in place of the County A-1 and two were appealed to the Board of Supervisors but it was opposed successfully and the County took notice of the fact that the proposed adjacent property in your City was not only zoned R-1 but in your plan of development would remain R-1. Council and Commission sent resolutions to the County that thisshould not be developed with any commercial zoning. The over-all plan regards this area as suitable for R-1 and you have gone on record in that manner over a period of years even though there has been effort of every kind for extensive commercial zoning. However, the only part that has ever succeeded is that portion indicated as a triangle and that is -in the City of Covina. C.C. 6-27-60 ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 - continued Mr. C. K. Hackler - continued: Page Fourteen There is a natural barrier of the Wash and outside of that area it has been R-1 throughout. The Lark Ellen Hospital request for adjacent office building is operat- ing under an Unclassified Use and should be treated as a variance of actual zoning which is R-1. There is a 150 foot strip from the hospi- tal to San Bernardino Road which has a deed restriction and can only be used for trees and Shrubs and there will be no development -there of any kind except that, so you would be putting R-3 or C-2 up against property the first 150 feet of which must remain a planted area with no structures. There was a mention of a petition in favor. If you give C zoning here you may control this in some manner but you have no control over here to the north in the County and those are very narrow, deep lots. I assume these people think they can sell these narrow lots and gain money if this goes through, but you will never have any development there that will amount to anything. This may be suitable for R-3 but we do have strong objections to the C-2 because the City has helped the County maintain the R-1 there. Mr. M. T. Rafferty In the back of these shallow lots there 16827 San Bernardino Road are nearly as many homes as in the front of them. I think these people are under the opinion if this goes in they will get a good price for their homes, but they do not realize they will not, because of the houses that will be on the lots. Businesses will turn these homes into their own uses and those homes in the back would be in objection. IN REBUTTAL Mr. Sherman: It seems the opposition is worried about what will happen on the north side while we are here for what happens in this City on the south side. You will not have to control what will happen on the north side of Ban Bernardino Road, and the three houses existing behind this, property have signed in favor of the zoning. I do not see how the deed restriction on the property adjacent to the hospital affects this property because you could put a house here within 150 feet of this zoning and the deed restriction was to protect the hospital. It doesn't apply to any of the properties along here and if an R-1 structure could be put in within the confines of the zoning it would be detrimental to the hospital. In discussion at the Commission relative to the zoning of the property one of the items that came up was that within a month or two the County was going to meet and discuss what would be done so far as the master plan in this area was concerned, and Covina would be present along with West Covina. The Chairman of the Planning Commission asked if it were possible to hold this over until the whole thing could be studied and possibly a better plan given. We were in favor of waiting if they were talking of a week or two weeks, but the limit they set forth could have been two months or two years, so we requested a decision be given so as not to wait some inde&nite period for them to make up their minds. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. C. C. 6-27-60 ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 - continued Page Fifteen Councilman Brown"indicated.that the resolution did not contain the valid reasons for denial brought up at the hearing before the Commission and that something has been changed since that meeting and what is in this resolution. The Minutes of the Planning Commission relative to this matter were read by the City Clerk as per request. Councilman Towner: It would seem that the majority of the Commissioners had a pretty sound basis for denying the application. I can see that if we do go into this "piecemeal" we are going to make it more difficult to do our best over-all planning and we may end up where'we will put something other. than R-1 in this area, but the reasons for it do not appear to me at the moment. There should be concern over R-3 lots that are only of a size normally developed for R-1. If you have this much R-3 there should be better development and an over-all study of it rather than this high density and small lot type of arrangement. I am concerned about R-1 across Badillo as you would have R-3 backed up to it, which is usually not considered good planning practices. I go along with the Planning Commission. Councilman Barnes: I took a look at this property and to the west is Los Angeles County area with C-2 south of the Wash, at least a sign there indicates C-2. I agree those little buildings aren't very desirable and I am sure West Covina wouldn't develop anything of that type. . Covina has put in "M" zoning of a type across the street on the north and to the west of the Wash. This is indicative to me that Covina doesn't intend to put in R-1 in any of the area. They didn't consult us in regard to what they should put in there, I do not believe, as I didn't hear anything about it. I think this is a good development in that I think to put R-3 near the hospital would be good and also to the west, under this new revised plan,- may be C-2 on front to conform to the property to the west in the County. I think to deprive this developer from developing his property would be wrong and it would be wrong to wait for the County, Covina and West Covina to hold him up if he has an investment here to develop. I would be in favor of this. I do think the 60 foot lots are rather small, but they do meet minimum standards insofar as R-3 lots are concerned. Mayor Heath: I sat in on this Commission meeting and so did Councilman Brown and I gathered from what I heard, and from the Minutes, that the purpose of denial was based on the fact that the Commission wanted a study on this area and wouldn't give a definite time as to when this study would be done. Here we have a man who has invested in this property and wants to develop it,and the trend was that some one of these months people would get together and make a group study of this area and then he would get some kind of an answer, but I think he has to have his answer now one way or the other. To a question of Councilman Snyder, Mr. Joseph stated that the request for .toning is for the entire front as C-2 and the remainder as R-3. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Sixteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 - continued Councilman Snyder: There appears to be an island of County land. I looked at this land and can understand the owner and the Commission's problems. I think the 100 foot R/W on Badillo answers the problem of R-3 backing up to R-1, and the hospital'to the east, but obviously there is a lot of consideration of zoning of C-2 on San Bernardino Road which has to be done in coordination with the' County and Covina. I would be for granting the R-3'zoning on rear but holding commercial C-2 zoning on the front or else zone this whole thing R-3. Councilman Browne There has been a letter from the City of Covina mentioned several times tonight and in essence it said that the City of Covina would like to see this whole area held for I'M". The reason I brought up that the resolution did not conform to what was indicated at the Commission was that they brought up 5 reasons of denial and after quite a discussion back and forth, and after turning to the City Attorney and he indicated only one reason was valid, and after one Commissioner had voted in favor and then decided to change his mind, then the matter was denied. Councilman Towner: other R-3 more suitable such as Councilman Snyder: O City Manager Aiassa: The final action of the Commission is what counts. I am not necessarily against R-3 here, but there might be R-3a rather than straight R-3 zoning. The reason I am concerned with what is an apparent island here is that eventually it will go to either City. As an island, but they can't grant any more until someone else annexes. Councilman Brown: This is an island from the rear to San Bernardino Road down the easterly side of Lark Ellen down just south of Badillo coming in and joining Grovecenter which again becomes the City of West Covina, stops at Azusa and works back to the Covina Bowl and again becomes Covina. Councilman Snyder: I do not want to confuse the issue, but as it stands in the future it is going to be in one or the other City, it is inevitable. Mayor Heath: I looked at this property and commercial along there is not temporary. It may be in on a temporary basis but I see no one tearing down a concrete block building on San Bernardino Road just west of this property in the City of Covina. Both sides of San Bernardino Road are stores not of a temporary nature. I feel if this commercial property is in there it is going to remain there for some time because they are permanent buildings and I can't see where there would be a change to any other zoning but commercial. I can't see R-1 next to the commercial buildings and, therefore, since there is commer- cial in there, I think there is no reason we shouldn't have some in there and reap the same benefits also. Across San Bernardino Road there is a setback which is manufacturing and called Industrial Park and I can't see a man putting R-1 in across a C. C. 6-27-60 Page Seventeen • ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 - continued Mayor Heath - continued: the street from Covina where indications are fairly strong there will be no residential between the industrial park and 'San Bernardino Road. I think it is a natural in it for commercial. Councilman Snyder: San Bernardino Road is a 'ono man's land" and it seems by putting commercial zoning here this is piece zoning a thing and we have got to work together with these other cities and the County. I have no objection to the R-3. Councilman Brown: If the City of Covina gets the portion north of San Bernardino Road it will immediately become "M" because it was indicated we hold this for "M" zoning. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that Tenta- tive Map of Tract No. 25801 be approved. Councilman Towner: Before acting on this it would appear to me that the motion gets the cart before the horse. in that you have moved on the tentative map before acting on the zone change. I do not see how you can do that and tie., them together. I am not too much concerned about this R-3 but I am concerned about this kind of a map indicating a very high density type of development and a minimum type of development that is permitted in the City. I do not think there is adequate consideration being given to an R-3 develop- ment of this kind. If you act on the zone change I recall the applicant stated his willing- ness to withdraw that portion of commercial and willing to go along with that portion of the R-3. Mayor Heath: The hearing in the Commission was over a two meeting period. The first meet- ing indicated strongly in favor of R-3 and that the Planning Department and owners should get together and remove the commercial and make it all R-3. I do not know what happened but at the second hearing the commercial was back on the proposal and discussion at the second meeting was entirely on C-2 and R-3. Councilman 'Snyder: If any part of the motivation is retaliation against Covina you are going to have trouble along San Bernardino Road until this final all-over zoning is made. If you are trying to beat Covina to the punch this is going to be going on all the time here. Councilman Towner: as to where the lines are drawn. tions on this. Mr. Williams: Councilman Towner: only. It is stipulated specific points. I have before me a zoning map drawing a straight line across and I am wonder- ing whether the two maps are the same I thought we could go to R-3a restric- You can on the precise plan. We do not have an approved map and if I understand the motion it relates to the map before us and that is a proposal in general from San Bernardino Road - no C. C. 6-27-60 Page Eighteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 - continued Mr. Williams: This can be translated and the ordinance wouldn't read this way. Councilman Towner: I think the Council understands the dimensions and can see it in front of them and dimensions are actually what we are concerned with. Motion by -Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that the Zone Change be made on the R-3 Area I approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25801, Lots 2 through 23. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Councilman Towner: Regarding the tentative map, I would point out that a piece of property of this size with a precise plan could have a beautiful development, more suitable to adjoining areas, but to have it cut into small residential lot sizes you will have high density and low value apartments. I would like to see us shoot a little higher on this. If it were suitable to the applicant perhaps we could hold the tentative map over and he would redraft it. I am not willing to approve the map as presented. Mr. Williams: You need precise plan approval even if you approve the tentative map and this could be done by precise plan. Councilman Brown: There seemed to be quite a bit of friction between the Planning Department, or Planning Commission, and the appli- cant, and.if this didn't work out on one level it wouldn't work out on another. Councilman Snyder: I do not think you can make undercurrents a matter of record. Councilman Brown: If you can't get two people to talk and work together about a tentative map there is an undercurrent whether it is a matter of record or not. Councilman Towner: I think there can be cooperation be- tween these people and that they can get together and if the applicant so desires I would like to see this tentative map held over and see if we can get an over-all plan that is better than this. Mr. M. Pick: What you have in front of you isn't exactly in the nature of a precise plan, but do you think I would go into compe- tition against myself if I knew it wasn't right? I ask for your decision tonight. Councilman Snyder: What does the approving of this map entail? C. C. 6-27-60 ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 - continued Councilman Brown: 0 Councilman Towner: have to have a precise plan? Mr. Williams: Councilman Towner: Page Nineteen It only approves all streets but no zoning on the front parcel. '-It approves layout of streets and cutting of lots. Suppose he has R-3 zoning and approval of the map,can he now build merely -by getting building permits, or does he Unless he builds R-1 he will have to have a precise plan. That would give us some control. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that Tenta- tive map of Tract No. 25801 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: Councilman Towner Absent: None Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that subject property running 172 feet on the easterly side, south of San Bernardino Road, and 227 feet on the westerly side, southerly of San Bernardino Road, be zoned C-2. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Noes: Councilmen Towner, Absent: None PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO.41 City Initiated APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ground floor, and also the Zone C-1, by Resolution No. Barnes, Mayor Heath Snyder Planning Commission recommended approval of a proposal to amend Ordinance No. 325, Article 8, Section 800, relating to the use of portion of the building located above the addition of certain uses to Section 800, in 909. The City Clerk read the resolution of the Planning Commission. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated all those desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. There being no testimony presented, the hearing was declared closed. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the City Attorney be instructed to draw up and ordinance to adopt the recommendations as contained in Resolution No. 909 of the Planning Commission relative to Proposed Amendment No. 41. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO.40 Planning Commission recommended approval City Initiated of a proposal to amend Ordinance No.325 HEARING CONTINUED to modify certain regulations pertain- ing to height limitations of buildings under Section 401 and Section 701, by Resolution No. 906. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Twenty PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 40 - continued Councilman Towner indicated that as presented there had been complica- tions and he hadn't gone back over it and was under the impression that staff might have reviewed it and had some recommendations. • Mayor Heath opened the public hearing. There was no testimony presented. Mayor Heath stated that this matter would be continued until the next regular meeting. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO.34 Planning Commission recommended approval City Initiated of a proposal to amend Ordinance No:325 HEARING CONTINUED to modify certain regulations in Ordin- ance No. 416 (R-P Zone), pertaining to height of buildings, Section No.700.2 under their Resolution No. 820. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing. There was no testimony presented. It was consensus this matter should be studied with Proposed Amendment No. 40. Mayor Heath stated this matter would be continued until the next regular meeting. PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN LOCATION; North side of Workman Avenue NO. 199 (Revised) between Azusa and Hollenbeck Frank Horny APPROVED AS STIPULATED Planning Commission reviewed the revised precise plan and submits report of approval with conditions. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that Precise Plan of Design No. 199, Revised, be approved subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Engineering Department with the stipulation that landscaping on Workman Avenue be according to Planning Department and Recreation and Park Department approval and to the conditions pertaining to drainage as set forth by Mr. Harold L. Johnson in his communication dated December 14, 1959. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Zone Change No. 145, zoning R-3a Area District I, be approved. UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT LOCATION; Southeast corner of Merced NO. 43 and Butterfield Road. Christian Science Society APPROVED Held over by Council subject to approval of Precise Plan by the Planning Commission through regular channels. Precise Plan approved by Planning Commission on June 16, 1960. There has been no appeal and Council may appeal if it so wishes. • Councilman Brown asked for an appeal, which was granted. IN FAVOR Mr. F. Fry: I represent the Society, am on the Building Committee, and we have studied the recommendations submitted. The recommendations made are in the best interests of the neighborhood and the City for a subdivision project. But this is not a subdivision C.C. 6-27-60 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO, 43 -,continued Mr. F. Fry - continued: Page Twenty -One and is not being built for benefit, and the suggested improvements are not necessary for our activities. We will use the buildings on Sunday and Wednesday evening, have two lectures a year and small committee meetings occasionally with no social activities. The precise plan submitted and approved by the Commission was subject to certain conditions which were acceptable to us and others were not. We would like to use Butterfield for egress. The request relative to Butterfield is only advantageous to be used as such, a driveway, as it would cut down traffic problems in the area. The same holds true in entering Merced from Butterfield as a boulevard stop would be safer than an exit', from the church grounds to Merced. The church pays $7,000.00 for a street and is deprived of its use. We request if this is upheld we can submit an alternate plan for Leaf Avenue extension. IN OPPOSITION Mr, R. Brooks I am speaking on behalf of the 60 peti- 1229 Butterfield Road tioners against this, all who live inside the immediate vicinity of this proposed zone change. We will be affected by traffic pattern and to the use of this property for other than R-1 subdivision as it was set out when homes were bought in this area. If we do not succeed in opposing this use then we oppose the precise plan that the Commission favored at the last meeting. The extension of the cul-de-sac of Leaf Avenue to the west and egressing onto Butterfield isn't in keeping with any of our wishes. Extension of Leaf directly north to Merced, if this is approved, we would be in favor of that. Mrs. J. West It was stated to me that it wasn't 1226 S-Butterfield wanted to bring Leaf through to Merced as there wasn't wanted another entrance onto Merced from Leaf. However, I can't understand a parking lot egress and ingress holding 100 cars to be any more acceptable than another street and a street going into Merced would be much better. Mrs>'Allyson We have opposed this from the beginning 1252 S. Butterfield as we feel it is spot zoning and isn't in the best interests to anyone in the area. This will affect the valuation of the properties and is a fact, The Commission has a set of rules about buffering and this should be in a buffer zone and this is not a buffer zone, it is all residential. If this were a neighborhood of odd -shaped lots and couldn't be improved, it would be different, but it isn't and this can be improved. Should he have gone ahead and developed and put a street through Leaf - and I talked to a man who desired to purchase two of the lots and another man •who desired to have one other - but he didn't desire to sell and I feel as if he had, it would be, and still is, good property and it is not a bad piece of property because of some drainage problems. C. C. 6-27-60 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 43 - continued IN REBUTTAL Page Twenty -Two Mr. Fry: Throughout the finest cities in Cali- fornia churches are in residential areas, and we are bringing in a church • that is an advantage to the neighborhood. If you had homes here you would have more traffic than this use would bring. In reference to a street going to Butterfield Avenue, we would like to have it go to Leaf if we could use it, but do not feel we should be de- prived of this street, the use of it. Either way it is approved we would like our architect to submit an alternate plan. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Barnes: This was nothing decided upon by Commis- sion or Council, but we have a map which was made relative to a study with the Ministerial Association in 1958 and they have drawn radius circles for possible church sites and available land. I believe that the map shows is 15 existing sites and 15 deficiency areas with one-third of a mile radius overlap. The arrows indicate the movements of these churches within the deficiency areas. Is this area designated as a possible site? Mr. Joseph: No. There are two possible sites indi- cated in the area but this is in the middle of the two possible sites. Councilman Brown: Mr. Fry states he doesn't like the precise plan and Council was only to consider this when it had the plan in front of them. I agree with the Commission relative to restricting any ,egress and ingress from Leaf and keeping traffic strictly out of the residential area. It was done at St. Christopher°s Church site which is a situation similar to this. If he doesn't want to develop it I can't see voting on the zoning if, he wants to change the precise plan passed by the Commission. Councilman Snyder: Churches aren't considered spot zoning. They are validly placed in residential areas. There is a school to the north, street to west and I see no valid objection to this as a church site. There are some points in the precise plan that I do not quite approve of, but I would have to go along with this Unclassified Use Permit. Councilman Towner: I am inclined to agree with Councilman Snyder so far as the Use Permit is con- cerned, but it is still contingent upon a precise plan. The opponents favor Leaf coming out to Merced and the applicants say they can't put Leaf Avenue extension to Butterfield Road. However, the applicant indicates willingness to go to Merced and the .opponents favor Leaf going to Merced, but I haven't seen a plan so I do not know. But if you take Leaf to Merced then you have residential and church traffic in and out of there. Councilman Barnes: I think if we confine Leaf to the Planning Commission recommendation and close access you confine traffic of the area to strictly residential and eliminating church traffic, and I think this is good and a good treatment for a residential area and it puts parking for;.the church out front where it should be. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Twenty -Three UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 43 - continued Councilman Brown; I agree with Councilman Towner, evidently the opponents and proponents agree they want Leaf to come out to Merced but I would rather see it go into Butterfield if it is granted. For myself, I do not believe this is a place for a church. Theybelong in a residential area to some extent, but I think we are going overboard here and we have kept churches in places to buffer next to a wash or commercial area with the exception, possibly, of two which was done quite some time ago. Councilman Towner: I think the Commission came up with a good solution to a difficult problem but the applicant states that he doesn't like it so I do not see how we can grant it. Mr. Williams: You may grant it by following the plan approved by the Commission, which he must do, or else he must submit a new one which would be subject to your review and approval. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Unclassified Use Permit No. 43 be approved. Voting in opposition was Councilman Brown. TENTATIVE MAP OF LOCATION: Southeast corner of Cameron TRACT NO. 24002 and Valinda Avenues. James A. Delaney APPROVED 4.7 Acres - 16 Lots - Area District II. Approved by Planning Commission on June 15, 1960. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 24002 be approved subject to the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission and the City Engineer. TENTATIVE MAP OF LOCATION: South of Francisquito Avenue, TRACT NO. 25572 at Alwood Street James A. Delaney APPROVED 3 Acres - 10 Lots - Area District II Approval recommended by Planning Commission on June 15, 1960. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 25572 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Engineer. METES AND BOUNDS LOCATION: 1020 S. Spring Meadow Road SUBDIVISION NO. 135-169 Neil Campbell 1.23 Acres - 2 Lots - Area District III • APPROVED Approval recommended by Planning Commission on June 15, 1960. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-169 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Engineer. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Twenty -Four RECREATION AND PARKS RECREATION SALARIES Report from Finance Office was read by City Manager as follows: "The Recreation Department Salary Account will be completely expended as of June 15. An additional $2,200.00 will be needed to provide funds for the June 30 payroll, There are no funds remaining in the Recreation account to cover this shortage,, however, the Recreation revenue accounts have exceeded ;_udget estimates by approximately $3,000.00. On this basis, do you wish too 1. Permit normal operations to continue as scheduled for the last half of June allowing the salary account to overdraw; 2. Obtain an additional appropriation from the City Council; or, 3. Cease all Recreation activity, Inasmuch as these are part-time positions scheduled by Recreation, the reasons for this will have to be provided by that department." Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that authori- zation be given for the appropriation of funds from the Recreation and Park Fund surplus to the Recreational Department Salaries Account in the amount of $2,200.00. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Noes: None Absent: None GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Mrs, M. Gaines of 924 Barbara Street stated that she was present this evening to make a representation to Council as to the intent of action relative to the R-3 on California Avenue and Glendora Avenue near Merced. As soon as the proper publication has been completed, the group of Barbara Street home owners, and those from other areas in the City, will have a referendum petition to oppose this extensive R;-�3 zoning at this location, and will have 10% of the registered voters in the City, so as to show Council we should keep this a City of beautiful homes rather than just splatter R-3 uses, or other uses, around residential zoning whenever a buffer zone idea comes up. CITY MANAGER REPORTS RESOLUTION NO, 1879 The City Manager presented and read: Adopting a budget approving "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF expenditure of gas tax THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ADOPTING A • allocations BUDGET AND APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF ADOPTED AGREEMENT FOR EXPENDITURE OF GAS TAX ALLOCATIONS FOR MAJOR CITY STREETS" Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1879 C. C. 6-27-60 Page Twenty -Five RESOLUTION NO. 1879 - continued Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said gas tax agreement. • HARBERT PROPERTY Reduction of initial payments of 5% annual on balance about several hundred dollars City. -Manager Aiassa indicated this was a reduction of initial payments of 5% annual on the balance of this property and the receiving of one parcel of land so as to be immediately removed from the tax roll. The saving would be by removing one parcel from the tax rolls. Mr. Williams indicated this should be held over until the first meeting of July in order to make proper changes at the proper time. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner and -carried, that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an amended contract be- tween Mr. Harbert and the City of West Covina. MT. SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE City Manager Aiassa indicated there was SIGN REQUEST a problem of size of the sign which would encroach over the State R/W. The recommendation would be for the small size sign, the representatives of the college want the larger size, so he recommended this matter be tabled until July 25th at which time the staff will meet with the State Division of Highways, informally, and get their comments on the overhang of this large sign,,and if they would agree it would not be necessary to conform,he would go with the 8 foot sign and the college representatives are satisfied to wait relative to this proposal. TRIP TO SACRAMENTO RELATIVE TO GLENDORA AVENUE BRIDGE Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that authorization be given for $176.75 for air transporta- tion and cost on this trip. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION NO. 1880 The City Manager presented: Amending Resolution No.1277 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE Vacation Leave CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING CERTAIN ADOPTED PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 1277 RELATING TO VACATION. LEAVE" Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1880 C. C. 6-27-60 Page. Twenty -Six RESOLUTION NO. 1881 Extending time for commencement under County Library agreement ADOPTED 0 Mayor Heath: The City Manager presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA EXTENDING THE TIME FOR LETTING OF CONTRACT AND COMMENCEMENT OF OPTION UNDER LIBRARY AGREEMENT" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Reso- lution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1881 BADILLO STREET The City Manager was instructed to inform the City of Covina that Council was in complete agreement relative to Badillo Street requirement of 100' R/W in that it should remain as previously indicated which, in effect, should retain major highway status. CITY ATTORNEY ADOPTION OF WEST COVINA Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded MUNICIPAL CODE by Councilman Towner and carried, that the City Council acknowledges the receipt of three copies of the West Covina Municipal Code and orders them to be filed in the office of the City Clerk, together with three copies of the secondary codes which adopted the Plumbing Code-1958, Building Code-1958 and Fire Prevention Code- 1953, and they are to be certified to be true copies by the City Clerk. Mr. Williams: The three copies have now been filed with the City Clerk. INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: An Ordinance adopting "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE West Covina Municipal Code CITY OF WEST COVINA ADOPTING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES WHICH ARE OBSOLETE, CODIFIED IN SAID CODE OR IN CONFLICT WITH 'SAID CODE" Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, that the reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Noes: None • Absent: None Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the Ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. • C. C. 6-27-60 Page Twenty -Seven APPROVE NOTICE OF PUBLIC Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded HEARING by Councilman Barnes and carried, that WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE the notice of public hearing be approved and the City Clerk is ordered to make publication of same. (July 25, 1960). INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: An Ordinance amending "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF West Covina Municipal Code THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING WEST to rezone premises COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE CERTAIN (Weisel) PREMISES" (Weisel) Mr. Williams indicated that the second and final reading on this Ordin- ance could not take place for four weeks rather than the usual two. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that the Ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: An Ordinance amending "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF West Covina Municipal Code THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING WEST to rezone property COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE CERTAIN (Snell and Allen) PROPERTY" (Snell and Allen) Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the Ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. RESOLUTION NO. 1882 Approving portion of Precise Plan of Design No. 231 ADOPTED Mayor Heath: The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING A PORTION OF PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO.231, REVISED" (Snell and Allen) Hearing no objections, we will waive' further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes, Mayor Heath Noes: Councilmen Towner, Snyder Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1882 • C. C. 6-27-60 Page Twenty -Eight RESOLUTION NO. 1883 The City Attorney presented: Reappointing Frank Whitcher "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF as a member to Recreation THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REAPPOINTING and Park Commission FRANK WHITCHER AS A MEMBER OF THE ADOM, D RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION" • Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1883 RESOLUTION NO. 1884 Reappointing Clyde Busching to Recreation and Parks Commission ADOPTED Mayor Heath: The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REAPPOINTING CLYDE BUSCHING AS A MEMBER OF THE RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1884 CITY CLERK ZONING CASES PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS No. 3908-(1) - City of Covina No. 3981-(1) - City of Industry No protests No. 60 - City of Industry No protest TIME EXTENSION REQUEST Replacement of block wall on.Lots 59 and Mrs. Mabel L. Lovett 60 in Tract No. 14681. Previously given 6 months time due to serious physical condition of husband due to accident. Additi6nal6 months requested at this time. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that the request of Mrs. Mabel L. Lovett be granted, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Councilman Brown voted "No" in that he felt that for the present 90 days would be sufficient with reconsideration of the matter at that time, and this is something -that could be in danger of dragging out. C. C. 6-27-60 Page Twenty -Nine LOS ANGELES COUNTY Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded FAIR BANNER REQUEST by Councilman Towner and carried, that this request be referred to the proper committee. • HELEN KELLER DAY Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by June 27, 1960 Councilman Barnes and carried, that the Mayor proclaim June 27, 1960, as Helen Keller Day. DISABLED AMER`ICAN E1 Monte Post No. 64. VETERANS SALVAGE PICK-UP REQUEST Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the request to make salvage pick-ups be granted subject to clearance with the proper authorities and proper display of their sign on the pick-up truck. BOOKMOBILE IN Motion by Councilman Bowner, seconded CORTEZ PARK by Councilman Snyder and carried, that the request of the County Library to have a Boo4mobile in Cortez Park be approved, subject to coordination with the City Manager. Mr. Aiassa indicated this was a good start and Councilman Barnes stated we should not forget we have 5 more parks in the City. However, there are a lot of children at this parkk and area and it was thought this would be a good place to have this use for the present. EASTLAND BUSINESSMEN'S Sidewalk sale for July 30, 1960, on ASSOCIATION REQUEST the Eastland Shopping Center premises on DENIED the Mall and lower Esplanade from 9:30 to 5:30. One day with removal of items immediately after 5:30 P. M. There is an ordinance not permitting this, and a like request had been previously denied to merchants in the Center. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that the City Clerk send a written communication;indicating that this matter was denied because of legality relative to ordinance. EXTENSION OF TIME Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded TO CLOSE ESCROW by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Luke Realty the Luke, Realty be given a 15 day extension of time on the closing of the escrow on the old Police building.. COMMENTS OF MRS. VAN DAME: • I have had the feeling, lately, since this new Council came in, that there are some that would just as soon not have me say anything during these meetings, but I am going to say it anyway, if I have it to say. I was looking at the Minutes and saw the matter of the change of street names. If you do this you have to notify the Registrar of Voters to that effect because they stamp new addresses on affidavits so people do not have to re -register, and also you should notify tax people. r' C. C. 6-27-60 Page Thirty MRS. VAN.DAME - continued There is no light in the coke machine and you can't tell the bottles apart. I think the loudspeakers are sure wonderful but I think you should stand the big microphone between the tables in the center. What about the swimming pools on the November ballot? Mayor Heath: We discussed that at budget but no decision was made then. You are trying to imitate Covina and not doing anything on your own. If Mr. Eisner is working for Covina and West Covina he is going to give preference to Covina. Mayor Heath: He gives his best for whatever City he is working for. Mr. Sill used to be the Police Chbf in Covina and has stated it didn't pay to have two men in the squad cars but Covina has now decided to do just that, have two men in the cars, and probably he will want to have two men, too - I think we should have. DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, that Demands in the amount of $483,868.42 be approved. Demands C-10366, C-10378 and C-10399 have been voided. This total includes fund trans- fers of $398,800.29. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None C00uncilman Brown stated that he wanted to indicate that the reason he was not at the joint meeting of the Commission and Council was be- cause he was not notified of the change and that he desired a communi- cation be sent to the Chairman of the Commission, by the City Manager, explaining why he was not in attendance. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that the meeting be adjourned at 1:25 A. M. to Thursday, July 7, 1960, at 7:30 P. M. APPROVED ( 6 0 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk