Loading...
07-11-1960 - Regular Meeting - MinutesT 1 � • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JULY 11, 1960 The meeting %xa.s called to order by Mayor Heath at 7:45 P. M. in the West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Towner, with the invocation given by the Rev. John Gunn of the First Baptist Church. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Heath, Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder Others Present: Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Mrs. Lela W. Preston, Deputy City Clerk Mr. Harry C. Williams, City Attorney Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Coordinator Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public Service Director CITY C.LERK'S REPORTS REQUEST FOR TIME LOCATION: West side of Irwindale Avenue, EXTENSION ON FINAL between Workman Avenue and Rowland Avenue. MAP OF METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION Expiration date June 8, 1960 NO. 135-156 (William H. Lockett) APPROVED Mr. Aiassa: Relative to this request, this is a lot split and I would like to have the opinion of the City Attorney as to whether a motion of Council. will suffice in this matter. Mr. Williams: The time extension on the filing of a final map on Metes and Bounds is the same as on a subdivision map and the extension can be permitted by a motion of Council. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the request for the time extension on the final map of the Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-156 be approved to the date of June 8, 1961. PROJECT C-129 LOCATION: South side of Rowland Avenue. Rowland Avenue between Lark Ellen and Homerest Avenues. Median Strip - AWARD CONTRACT Review Public Service Director's report of informal bids received by the Engineering Department for street improvements in connection with the development of Tract No. 24504. C. C—.7.-11-60 PROJECT C-129 - continued Page Two Mr. Aiassa: This matter is two -fold which is the physical improvement of the street and • a petition of the property owners to extend Leaf Avenue across this median 'str ..y. If Council desires, the petition can be reviewed to see if any justification is indicated to make another opening into this island. We have maps and aerial photographs to present to Council, also. The petition was read by the Deputy City Clerk and it was stated it contained 22 signatures. Mr. Aiassa: In the report presented the Engineering Department has estimated $300. 00 additional would be necessary to cut -..this opening into this strip plus improvements and paving. It will be a couple of weeks before the construction can actually take place and if Council would desire, the latter part could be held over until there is, perhaps, a physical review made of it. The staff feels there would be quite a small island, between the two intersections. However, we need authority to award a contract for the improving of the median strip. Councilman Brown: What if we do not want the (extra) opening? Mr. Dosh. The one with the cross street (over) is in the bid but not the additional one (requested). Mr. Aiassa: Council is in possession of a memo dated July 11, 1960 which;is self-explanatory. The last three paragraphs indicate that the peti- tion requests an opening also be placed in the middle of the block which would benefit residences only and not the general public The previous contract to Crowell -Larson recommends the awarding of the contract on the basis of the Leaf. Avenue intersection at a cost of $2,:003. 28. Additional cost for this cross- over will be $819. 65.(estimate). If the City constructs cross -over the total construction cost would be exceeding $2, 500. 00. Some of the home owners have indicated willingness to participate in the construction. The developer, however, changed his mind with regard, to the 2516 participation and doesn't feel he wishes to do so now. Council should determine whether or not the City should ;partici- pate in a cross -over which benefits a small segment of the public and .whether or not the City should expend money in this regard. The recommendation_ is the reaffirmation of what has been previously stated, the awarding of the contract to Crowell -Larson for the lowering of the :median strip on Rowland and the cross. -over at Leaf Avenue at this time. Councilman Brown: • Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Do.sh Mr. Aiassa: Would this allow left-hand turn at Rowland and Lark Ellen? There is no regulation against it, except intersections. There is enough room to turn around there, and they do it. An illegal !U' turn is in an intersection, but this doesn't indicate that if we can provide a left turn cut-off at Rowland and Lark Ellen. Councilman Brown: There will be if they go clear to Lark Ellen and Rowland. • C. C. 7-11-60 PROJECT C-129 - continued Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Barnes: Mr. Aiassa: Page Three There is a left-hand cut-off about 200-feet already existing. Why did he first agree to participate 25% and has now changed his mind and doesn't wish to do so? He has a contractor and the contractor doesn't want to do this extra work. Councilman Towner: I think it is reasonable to award this bid for the lowering of the median strip and putting in paving at Leaf Avenue. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown that authorization be given for the City Manager and City Engineer to negotiate a purchase order with the contractor (Crowell & Larson)' to the s.urii of.'$Z:, 003. 28. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen,Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None The matter of an illegal 'U'o turn was referred to the City Manta ger for .report. SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS DISTRICT A.' 11-57 -8 LOCATION: Ellen Drive and Rowland SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT Avenue Sewer District. Bids were received as advertised at 10:00 A. M. July 7, 1960, in the office of the City Clerk and referred to the City Engineer for recommendation to the City Council at this meeting. The Notice of Publication had been received from the West Covina Tribune on June 23 and 30, 1960, as a news item in the Green Sheet on June,'21., 1960 and posted at Council Chambers on June 20, 1960 to this date of July 11, 1960. The bids received were as follows: Correction FALCON CONSTRUCTION CORP. $74, 211. 78 MAX MILOSEVICH 75, 644. 50 J. L. CONSTRUCTION CO. 81, 873. 35 L. D. & M. CONSTRUCTION CO. 84,922. 08 A. J. ZARUBICA 85,608. 36 A & P PIPELINE CO. 85, 880. 03 MIKE RAMLJAK CO. 87,223. 50 $87, 224. 13 FRANK CHUTUK CONSTRUCTION CO. 89, 649. 66 LEO WEILER CO. 121. '708. 81 All bids contained 10% bid bonds. Recommendation was to award contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Falcon Construction Corp. , in the amount of $74, 211. 78 with all tinsuccessful' bids and bid bonds to be returnee. C. C. 7-11-60 Page Four RESOLUTION NO. 1885 The City Attorney presented: Sanitary Sewer District "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL A911-57-8 - award oifOF WEST CO VINA AWARDING A CONTRACT .. contract to perform ,X) IMPROVE ELLEN DRIVE AND OTHER sanitary sewer work STREETS IN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE • (Falcon Contr. Corp.) WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENTION ADOPTED NO. 1836. '' (A' 11-57 -8) Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further L;._. reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that said resolu- tion 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. 1885. HEARINGS STREET LIGHTS 1960-1961 Hearing of protests to proposed improvements and assessments as provided in City Council's Resolution of Intention 'No. 1871. Mayor Heath: This is the time and the place set for :.hearing protests and/or objections to the City Engineer's report dated June 13, 1960, and to Resolution No. .1871 adopted by the City Council for the furnishing of electric current and maintenance for certain street lights in this City. Does the Deputy City Clerk have the affidavits of publication and posting required by law? Mrs. Preston: We -,have the Affidavit of Publication of "Notice of Improvement" as published in the West Covina Tribune on June 16 and 23, 1960 and the Affidavit of Posting of "Notice of Improvement. " Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried that the affidavits of Publication and Posting be received and filed. Mayor Heath: Does the Deputy City Clerk have any written protests or objections to the said improvement? Mrs, Preston: We have received no written protests or objections..._ Mayor Heath: Does anyone present have any verbal protests • or objections or any questions relative to this improvement ? Mr. J. G. Drake Does this cover the entire City? 1002 So. Donna Beth Mr. Aias,sa: All the existing lights in the City. Mayor Heath: Since there appears to be no protests or further questions from the audience, I believe C. C. 7 -11-60 STREET LIGHTS 1960-.1961 - continued • RESOLUTION NO. 1886 Confirming the report of the City Engineer dated June 13, 1960 prepared pursuant to the provisions of the street light act ADOPTED Mayor "Heath: Page Five there is a resolution regarding this matter to be read. The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER .::DATED JUNE13, 1960 PREPARED PUR- SUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1919 AND REFERRED TO IN RESOLUTION OF INTEN- TION NO. 1871 OF SAID COUNCIL, AND THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIM- ATE, DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT CON- TAINED IN SAID REPORT: ORDERING THE'.—. WORK AND LEVYING OF ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AND ILLUMINATE BY ELECTRIC ENERGY THE STREET LIGHTS WITHIN SAID CITY FOR THE PERIOD OF MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 1961. " Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Ab,lent : None Said resolution was given:;No. 1886. DISTRICT Aa 11-57-6 Hearing of protests or objections to con - Sanitary Sewer District firmation of assessments to cover the installation of sanitary sewers in the Service Avenue, Barbara Avenue and St. Malo Street sewer district. Hearing held in accordance with "Notice of Filing Assess- ment and Diagram" dated June 3, 1960 and continued to adjourned meeting of July 7, 1960 at which time the hearing was closed. Councilman. Brown: Lots 364-A and 365 were under great discussion at the last two meetings.. . whether these should be a lot added onto them. This is fine, but in a case where they would have been on any other project,,.. or line they would have been charged the full frontage whether they could get another lot'out of -them or not. So those two lots, as to the assessment by the engine er,',was proper without including another lateral. • There is, maybe, some argument on 367-A, that he should have had another lateral, but again there is 212-feet of frontage sewer which runs on that side of him and the adjustment offered, I think is more than fair. On 364-A and 365 I would :....�. go along with revised lowering of their assessment. C. C. - 7-11-60 Page Six A111-57-6 -.PROTEST HEARING - continued Councilman Towner: I have reviewed the evidence received at the hearings and the recommendations of the . Assessment Engineer and I recognize that in seeking to make equal benefit and carry equal burdens it is difficult on property where property is cut up in the manner this particular area is cut. I have some doubt, like Councilman Brown, as to the validity in lot splits that would result in illegal. lots, although it can provide some basis for assessment valuation. I am inclined to believe, with respect to 364-A and 365, that there should be some adjustment. I think a substantial adjustment has been recommended by the assess- ment engineer as a means of handling it and possibly more than they are entitled to. But as a way of settling this on what appears to be a reasonable basis I would go along with his recommendation on t�ose two lots and 367-A. As to the Craig Drive property I think there has been a fair assessment made there. All that would be accomplished by shifting assessments on these properties would be just to realign the burden. I have some doubt as to whether that is appropriate. In the absence of any real urge to do so by other members of Council I would not go .. along with realignment on Craig Drive. Councilman Barnes: I feel as Councilman' Towner does in this respect. I think the assessment engineer has done a very good job in reassessing and and adjusting the -assessment on 364-A and 365 and 367-A. However, I do not believe there should be any adjustment on Craig Drive. After studying and figuring these- all out I feel that their first appraisal of what should be assessed against these properties is very fair and very good. Councilman Snyder: I believe the assessment engineer acted in good faith in attempting to get equitable assessment throughout the total project and these were problem lots. O.ri 364-A and 365, the sewer ends there and I would go along with the assessment engineers recommendation for compromise and I would point out, in my opinion, this is a good compromise and I would go along with the other recommendation .on 367-A which, again, is a %tery generous compromise in my opinion. I would leave assessment alone on Craig Drive. Mayor Heath: I took another look, Sunday, at 364-A and 365 and I feel it would be a terrific problem to try to split those two lots. What the owner said about the trees is definitely a fact. • I guess the general feeling is, then, that these recommendations of the assessment engineer is fine. However, I would voice this opinion: I think on Craig Drive there is a little dis- crimination. I -asked for a study of it at the time of the July 7 meeting but stated that if there were any adjustments it would be minor. I still feel that a person is entitled to an adjustment, even if it is only $2. 00 and in this case I believe it could possibly be around twenty or twenty-five dollars. However, it seems to be the general opinion of the Council that those assessments on Craig : Drive should stand and I would not push the matter any further. C: C. - 7-11-60 Page Seven A111-57-6 - PROTEST HEARING continued Councilman Towner: The assessment engineer has entered a resolution for the City Council which I believe • we could adopt to modify the amounts of these assessments, .With the exception that we should delete the schedule of modifications beginning with Item 4 through 9 and leaving items 10 and 11 with the exception that the amounts be changed.. Councilman Snyder: What would happen if the monies in reserve were all used up? Mr. Thompson: There are incidental expenses and some por- tions are estimated, particularly that set aside for the City Treasurer. We must go on the premise that possibly every lot will go to bond so we put in the highest amount fbr the City Treasurer, so there will be some bonds paid off so there will be a surplus in that fund. If there is a surplus in the incidental fund it can be transferred back to the general fund. We have every reason to believe you will have adequate money. RESOLUTION NO. 1887 Ordering the modification of the amounts of certain assessments in Sewer Assessment District A' 11-57-6 ADOPTED The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING THE MODIFICATION OF THE AMOUNTS OF CER- TAIN ASSESSMENTS IN SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A' 11 -57-6 LARK ELLEN AVENUE AND OTHER STREETS. It 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 Noes: Mayor Heath Absent: None Mayor Heath stated that he qualified his "No" vote in that he feels that some assessments on Craig. Drive are slightly out of'line. ZONE VARIANCE NO. 139 LOCATION: 424 -So. Lark Ellen Avenue, Marie S. Dove _ between Sunset Hill Drive and Walnut HELD OVER AND REFERRED Creek Wash. BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION _ REQUEST: Continuation of nursery school uses in Zone R-1. Denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 917 on June 15, • 1960 and appealed by applicant on June 22, 1960. Maps =.were presented and the resolution of the Planning Commission was read. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated Council was operating under Ordinance 5.02 and that all those desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in. . C. C.-7711-60 Page Eight ZONE :VARIANCE NO.. 1.39. - continued IN .FAVOR . •Marie S. Dove On June 15, 1960, I appeared before the !Planning Applicant . Commission requesting an amendment and con- tinuance of Zone Variance No. 139 to conduct a nursery school use in R-1. I feel that perhaps my presentation. to. them was inadequate and the petition denied because of poor presen- tation. The City Attorney has advised me to present. all the relative facts of this case to the Cou.neil and I would request, at this time, that my letter of application be read for the record> Deputy City Clerk Preston read the letter of application for the record. Mrs. Dove: I also have letters of recommendation, although I do not know how pertinent they may be to this hearing. The Planning Commission denial was based on three different reasons. One was that the granting.of this variance would have the effect of allowing a special privilege:: not shared by others in the surrounding zone. In explanation of this it was indicated that a church request for school use on this property had been previously denied and in granting my variance it would amount to a special privilege. Now a school, which would have included a high school with teen-age activities or an elementary school with its activit,ies,would add traffic in conjunction with a greater noise element and is not to be colmpa.red with the activities of a nursery school for pre-school children. This school is in session five days a week with the week -end free df the use. The situation now., and five years ago, is essentially the same. The property is not suitable for R-1 development and insofar as an investigation revealed, there was no acceptable or feasible plan found to develop it as such; So to deny continued nursery school use would be to deny a reasonable use for the property. There are no exceptional circumstances not generally applied to the property in the area. The church and the size of the property does not lend itself to R-1 property development and this use pr,otrides the closest use with the proximity of the church on western property line, rear yards of homes to the north, a 150-foot buffer at the east and the Wash.at the southern boundary. There is a present plan for the improvement of the Wash which would deter develop- ment of the property for some time and single dwellings would be prohibitive in time. The Police and Fire Department indicate this large property creates a fire hazard and vandalism. as it stands. If this; variance was granted for this use in the past with a five year limit it would be reasonable .to. assume it was granted .on a test basis to see how this use would affect the general plan and control future development of that area. There have been no complaints against the previous nursery school use as such although at •the time there was great concern that, it would provide an opening wedge for possible future. school, use _'he. school use, however, was denied on its own lack of merit and it would indicate the nursery school was no opening wedge. It is difficult. to see how this situation is changed, but if Council feels that no per- manent variance should be granted, another 5 year limit on a variance would be acceptable ,to me.. C- C. 711-60 Page Nine ZONE VARIANCE NO. .139 - continued Previous studies indicated this property could be adequately developed as R-1. I asked several .members of the Commission about these studies because I and the owner were interested and I was told they were on file in the City H�Jl. However, a search was made and there appeared to be no such studies other than two maps on which there were rough pencil sketches of the extension of Leaf Avenue and neither map was offered as a plan of R-1. The owner assures me that R-1.isn't feasible because of the size, shape and location, otherwise it would have been more profitable to have put in R-1 if it were practical. I.n summary I would state the situation has not changed from the former granting of variance; there is a peculiar size, shape and location relative to this property which does not. lend 'itself to R-1; this use would enhance the property; vacancy of the area .. would cause a problem to all concerned and enforced vacancy is .not fair to the owner; a five year variance would be acceptable if the Council so desires; there is nothing in the file as to a definite means for R-1 development here; there is a need in the City for this type of school and it plans an important part in the community and ,child development this would appear to be the highest and best use for this property and I would welcome any regulations the Council might feel necessary to impose on this use to insure the best nursery scc hool conditions. Mayor Heath- We will interrupt these present proceedings relative to a matter regarding Sanitary Sewer District A' 11-57 -6. Mr Thompson: We would have the record show that we have changed the assessment o.n'this district.in keeping with the Resolution and its modifications and present it to you for your consideration. IN OPPOSITION Mr. W. Mannion Our property adjoins to the north of this property. 1518 Sunset Hill Dr. There are a number of reasons to oppose this nursery school. There hasn't been any complaint: in the past because we knew there was a matter of time until this use ran out. We feel we already have enough confusion in this area in that we can hear the noise from the high school and the football field; we have Sunday singing and traffic of both the churches here and which are very close to our property and we feel this use, with the churches, spoils the right of privacy on our R-1 property. We also feel this use would not aid the valuation of our property. • C o C o 711-60 Page Ten ZONE VARIANCE NO,':. 139 continued Mr. W o . Ma anion, -,:continued: We also feel this use would not aid the valuation of our property, Mr, Po ..Webster There is quite a bit of noise from the 1514 Sunset -Hill Dr3.ve use that is now in and the driveway approach in there is a real dust raiser when cars go through. r, Jo Ste.wart I do not think this school should'be per- 1524 Sunset Hil'1.Drive mitted to goiin because of the noise in the mornings and the dust problem we have in our back yards. It is dusty and the weeds are very,.high and a fire hazard. Mr, K.o:Ska-hill<i I..have lived here since these homes were 1445 Sunset Hill..Dr.ive built and the church itself was turned down on a variance insofar as educating a cer- tain number of children. The applicant hasn't stated the amount of children that she wants to have in here. We feel it would decrease the valuation of our homes. IN REBUTTAL The opposition stated there is enough confusion and objected to this use because, of`tha"to However, any residential area is going to have confusion.of.'little children as that is what a residential area is for -® family living. There would be, however, less confusion in a well regulated and supervised nursery school such as this will be. I -agree about the noise in the morning, yes, but I propose to bring my play area completely to the south and east so there would be a.`greater buffer area for those homes to th®'north relative to the noise of the children. This is a completely day time activity from the morning to 6 in the evening and there is no evening or week end activities in this school. The value' 'of the property with the nursery school previously behind it will not.change:if the nursery school continued. There is oppoeition'to noise and driveway dust. The driveways are in Poor cdndition;and:>we intend to repair them as it would be the only sensible..thing to-do for'the benefit of my clients. I,do not believe the nurshry,school.'area of play yard use adds to the dust, it comes from the lack ®f watering and'immediately behind their property is a barrier of dirt which has been placed to stop traffic to a place that is npt supposed to have this traffic in the first place m imme- diately be:hind'their yards. However, this hasn't anything to do with the nursery sdhoel`tselfo The church :was denied variance because of school use and I. believe that was adequately handled. There was a:queatioa as to the amount of children. The school is licensed by the..State Department of Welfare and by the City and gen- erally speaking..the-'State Department of Welfare governs the number of children allowed in,the building by the square feet. I hope to use the full building fer'the nursery school, barring the upstairs, but the full first floor, aInd when it is brought up to State specifications it will: be to ecpacity, but I do not know what that will be, probably 60 or '70 . c'l i,idre`n ,eventually. There,being.n® further testimony presented, the hearing was declared closed Co C. 7-11-60 Page Eleven ZONE VARIANCE NO, 139 - continued Councilman Towner.- As I recall, this initial nursery'school­ use was given a 5 year limitation on the variance 'and that has expired. It is also my recollection that the 5 year limitation was placed on it by't'he • Commission who took the view that it was interim use of the property pending its use as single family homes. Was there a plot plan submitted with this? Mr. Joseph„ No, just a request for the continuance of the variance. Councilman Towner.- Do the conditions of the prior variance indicate the areas of use for the play yard?. Mr, Joseph.- I believe so. Mayor Heath called a recess pending the obtaining of the original file on this matter to,be presented to Council. Council reconvened at 9:00 Po. M. ---_***,--- Deputy City Clerk Preston read the conditions of the ordinance relative to the original nursery school variance and stated that the five year period expired in March of 1960. Councilman Towner: It is possible this property could be con - tinned as a nursery school If those restric- tions were applied to it. However, I have this reservation in that it appears to me that since that variance was granted there has been additional week end and evening use rela- tive to the high school and the churches ,around it and if you have the daytime use of this nursery school it does add a heavier use to an area which is primarily a single family residence area. It was my understanding that at the initial granting of the variance this was indicated as being suitable for R-1 but the owner was not in a -position to proceed with development so this was an interim use. There has been indications this could not be reap�nably developed as R-1 but there have been no facts presented that would bear that out and I am inclined to go with the studies of the Commission that it could be developed as R-1 - that was their findings. Councilman Brown requested the staff report on this matter be read, which was done, and then he questioned as to whether staff had indicated. any recommendations. Mr. Aiassa stated that the same conditions would apply except Condition 4 which was in relation to the time limit, Councilman Brown: As for the 5 year limit on the original • variance, there were several reasons for that. The correct alignment of the Wash was not known at that time and isn't known at this time, in that particular area. This will be a problem piece of property in R-1 as it is 150 feet wide, or deep, on the westerly end, and 350 feet on the easterly end. On the northerly end it is approximately 480 feet and on the southerly side, 533 feet, before the Flood Control takes any. In my opinion, it will be a problem piece of pr4erty on which to place R-lo C. Ca 7-11-60 ZONE VARIANCE NO, 139 ---continued. Councilman Brown - continued: Page Twelve So far as it getting into the shape and condition that it'is in now, - I think that perhaps we didn't make -the restrictions explicit'enough - • spell them out strongly enough.- That it be a dust free driveway is an ambiguous statement and perhaps it should be spelled out. There appears to be a piece of property 15 feet wide between -this and residents on Sunset Hill and is a piece of property fenced -'off and nobody has taken care of this particular area and is a nuisance'to the residences backing to it, and is a place for horseback riders and bicycles to create dust. As part of the plan the 15 feet from residences shouldn't be used but maintained completely by the user of subject property. Councilman Barnes: What is the square feet per child? Mrs. Dove: Inside it is 35 square feet per child. The school has just been ltensed for 24 but I believe that amount is smaller than normally allowed because the former applicant was living on the premises and some was substituted for family living. This would be first licensed for 30, meaning the main part of the building, then when we made repairs and met requirements they would measure the square footage and allow so many per room. Outside is 75 square feet per child, with 100 feet recommended, and we have more than that. Councilman Barnes: I wanted to know this information as to how many square feet per child is permitted by the State as I feel it is important in a school of this type. I think, as Councilman Brown has stated, that this parcel if used should be completely fenced with a block wall, and to prevent dust from going into single family property it should be self-contained and the street improved which is on the recommendations. Mrs. Dove: The State asked or requires that a chain link fence rather than a block wall be constructed as they do not likea block wall around children and they like a chain link., that children can see through - this is their recommendation. We will be confined to the area to the south of the building, Councilman Barnes: Do children play in total area? Mrs. Dove: Play yards will be fenced in to the south. Councilman Snyder: You are going to do extensive remodeling of this house? . Mrs. Dove: Yes, and the City has made recommendations and the owner agreed to bring this up to those requirements. Councilman Snyder: I visited this house several years ago and if the repair work isn't done it won't last another 5 years, I do not'know the details of the school on which the church was turned down but I feel this can be developed into R-lo But also there is a need for nursery schools, and if there is some good protection afforded to residences to the north, which could be given by a block wall or some other type of screening, and as Councilman Brown states a definite Co C. 7-11-60 Page Thirteen ZONE VARIANCE NO; 139 - continued Councilman Snyder - continued: spelling.out of conditions in that driveway has black -top and -play area to the south and east to still sound, I would go along with it on a 3 to-5 year basis, but not as a permanent use. Mayor Heath: The question came upc:about R-1 .development. At the time the church asked for a school it was brought out by maps and plans where this area could satisfactorily develop as R-1. It showed a cul-de-sac street and I do not know what happened to this map but there was an extensive map supplied, I pointed out at that time that it couldn't very well develop as R-1 because of the hollows and depressions in the land, and I still q uestion whether it can be developed R-1 without considerable expense to fill in the property. I bet the church proposal was better than the one we have here now, and yet it was turned down. It is my feeling if it can be developed R-1 I would like to see it developed as R-1. However, out of past testimony and my personal obpervation I,'doubt if it can be developed in that way at this time. I am not in favor of a 5 year extension because, to me, things can happen in five years. The original zoning was given for 5 years as aminterim period which might be brought out by the fact that no new buildings should be installed during that time. I would go with the 3 year extension at this time but do not feel I want to go any further. Councilman Snyder: There might be a question of whether they would want to do extensive remodeling on a 3 year basis. Councilman Towner; I would say this. So far as the applica- tion presented tonight, I am not in favor of it because it does not have a specific set of restrictions. I can see continuing the use which has only been recently discontinued, provided that adequate and specific restric- tions are given to protect the home owners to the north and to get the street and driveway paved and the noise and dust under control. We do not have those conditions actually presented to us at this time and I do not know whether we have any recommendations madeaby the Commis- sion because they denied it. If we Zrant this on a restricted time basis I think we should get other restrictions into it before final action. In that connection it might be advantageous to refer this back to the Commission for their recommen- dations as to the time limit and other specific conditions and restric- tions. • Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Zone Variance No. 139 be held over and that the application be referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendations concerning.. the time limit and other conditions of use to be imposed in the event Council sees fit to grant the variance. Councilman Towner: One thing that the indications have shown here, I believe, is that the prior appli- cant did not comply with all the testric- tions as were set down and perhaps those were not sufficiently definite as Councilman Brown has indicated, • • Co C. 7-11-60 Page Fourteen A ZONE VARIANCE NO, 139 - continued Councilman Brown; In essence, we are saying that wevjDuld like for the Commission to study this and to give us some solid suggestions, ZONE VARIANCE NO, 312 LOCATION° Northeast corner of Barranea and Street and Cameron Avenue, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT _ NO, 2o?65 (Mason T. Request to permit reduction of lot -sizes Noise/Teril, Inc.) in Area District IV and for subdivision -of DENIED land as shown on the proposed map denied --by the'Planning Commission under th*ir Reso- lution No, 920 of June 15, 1960, and: appealed by.the applicant on June 17, 1960. Maps were presented and the Commission Resolution was read. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated that Council was operating under Ordinance No. 502 and that all those desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in, IN FAVOR Mason T. Noice We brought this subdivision into the 524 So Meadow Road Planning Commission and I see no special reason why this can't be subdivided some other way. The land is of a certain width and depth and in putting in the street improvement we are tied to a certain depth on all the lots. We have lots 107 x 150, 117 x 150 and 110 x 128, which are no small lots, with two slope lots, others being level. The street improvements are designed to open up Prospero Drive at.a later date. We are not asking for special privileges but the same privilege given on other estates such as Cameron Estates and•Swartz-Yoder which are not any 16,000 or over on any of these lots and they are hillside with only a small portion available to build.' These are completely level lots up to this point and any slope has gone to 20,000 foot lot. We feel the subdivision we will put in will not hurt anyone in the area and will increase the area building comparable to any,thereo At the request of Mr, Noice, Mrs, Preston presented and read a,letter from Mr, Do A. Thompson of No Prospero Drive which in essence indicated reasons that Mr. Thompson felt that consideration of approval should be given to this request. IN OPPOSITION.. Mr, Go Berkheimer I am also speaking for Dr.. EXshire who 2615 N. Prospero Dr. could not attend this meeting. I would like to go back to the Whitnall study which presented the idea that the City needed a buffer zone be- tween it and.the Highlands area. There was, at the time of the study, the Tenmen Enterprises that had this property that are the Swartz -Yoder homes of some 24 acres and that came,in under Area III. I attended, all the meetings at this time and the fluPl action of Council was this property should be taken into the O'ty as Area III. However, there was a snag in this in that the prose plan was filed before Area IV was in existence and.therefore tl was felt that the City had C. Co 7-11-60 Page Fifteen ZONE VARIANCE NO.3.12,.® continued: to take the property in as III but in the Minutes you will find"there was a recommendation that stated that if the precise plan was to be amended in any way it must conform to Area IV, • So far as the Cameron Estates, I do not know what happened there. At the time of annexation of this particular property I beliwe it was taken in as tentative Area IV and there was no reason at that time for Council to have said differently and I do not believe anything in the action indicated it should be other than Tentative Area IV, although Council didn't take action then to change it over to Area IV. This same property was the subject of a proposal for an apartment site, which included 4 story buildings, so evidently the owner has had nothing in mind but how much he can bleed the property at the expense of the people who live next to it. This use was turned down and now we have essentially the same kind of action to get this cut to Area III. It has been turned down for this area by both Council and Commission in previous actions and there is nothing changed on the property so far as I know, The developer, at the Commission meeting, put up another map showing this development under Area IV and it looked like a good map and I. see no basis for cutting the sizes of the lots. (Section) I would refer to Ordinance/1702 of the City and I do not feel there are any conditigns of this which are met by this application and there- fore see no reason why you should grant a variance. To develop this in Area IV would be no hardship on the present owner, I am sure. I_think the City would like to expand into the Highlands area and take it over and I think you have to give some thought as to where to put a buffer zone that has been talked about for so many years. Most of the lot sizes are one acre so this must be stopped someplace relative to trying to cut lot sizes down. Mr. R. Gordon 19050 E. Cortez St, lends itself to that -- and 16,000 foot lots unless the the Cameron Rstateso Although I am a resident in the County I face the City of West Covina. I.will have 8 acres for sale and development and it will be small estate property -- the ground it wouldn't be suitable for 15,000 or lots are machine made as in the case.of This whole.area of Cortez, Barranca and Cameron are all small estate properties, they are suitable for that, and if smaller lots should be put in here -it would be throwing away very valuable assets in the locality now. The hillside view lot and this one is no different than others, except maybe a little better. My 8 acres are down below and we are looking up and when I am trying to develop these into 20,000 square feet it is serious damage to me • to have somebody with possibly a better piece of property to have smaller lots and it is a hardship to me to be.looking into 6 back yards on the common boundary. Mr. Thompson has about three acres. I bought this land in 1957 and.I Am familiar with the layout of the land. Mr. Thompson acquired this' three acres a few years ago and has access with a cul-de-sac, and this street leading to his place is fine for him and he has financial _. interest and when he writes that letter ho is feathering his own nest, C. C. 7-11-60 Page Sixteen ZONE VARIANCE NO. 312 - continued The applicant says all the lots Are 16,000 square feet but some are -- under that -- about half do not measure to that -- but even 16,000 is too low, Mr. A. Kens None of the proposals on this property 3035 E. Cortez have proven there is a hardship to develop- ing this property in the manner the'area is zoned for. We are getting tired, too;, of having this thing consistently turned down and having it appealed. We believe there has been sufficient study'.here and there is no hard- ship to develop it to the sizes intended for it. Mr. F. Chisholm It has been pointed out -that Mr. Thompson 2622 No Prosper Dr. owns some 3 acres directly east -of this Covina and an associate owns Another acre or two. If this is allowed it won't be 3 weeks before a zone variance comes in on that other property. IN REBUTTAL Mr, Noice: I feel sure that if somebody bought his property he would have no objections to how they might use it. He did not mind looking at 5 lots but wouldn't want to look at 6 lots and I can't see any difference. I would like the Planning Depart- ment remarks read on this matter. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Towner: Before that is done I would point out that the remarks of the Planning Department are a guide to the Planning Commission and when the matter gets before us they have acted and their recommendation is what we act on and not the remarks of the Planning Department, although that doesn't mean I am not interested in what Mr. Joseph has to say but I think we should put this in its proper light. The remarks, as requested, were read. Councilman Snyder„ Do the level lands in Area IV have any limitations as to depth and width? It was indicated there would appear to be no minimum depth but with a width of 110 feet, minimum 20,000 square feet and the dwelling not less than 16,000 square feet, whereas Area III has 14,400 square feet in lot area, 90 in width and not less than 125 foot depth, with the dwelling not less than 1500 square feet. Councilman Towner: I understood Mr. Roelle owned this property, Mr, Noice: He has nothing to do with it, it is in escrow. Councilman Towner: Subject to zoning? Mr. Noice: No, Councilman Towner: It would appear to me on this situation where Mr. Roelle owns immediately adjoining property he would be aware of the restric- tion created and it is his own problem so far as the lot depth goes. While slope is one of the primary reasons for Area IV, there are addi- tional reasons, such as surrounding development. Co C. 7-11-60 ZONE VARIANCE NO, 312 - continued Councilman Towner - continued: Page Seventeen It is true you couldn't have Area IV overlying a particular portion • of West Covina property without some coming in on level land jut to -- remain consistent those portions would have to comply with ereA-dis- tricts even though that slope wasn't on the whole portion of it. The Swartz -Yoder area is an aberration of the intent of Area IV but we were legally prevented in this matter. What is area district on Cameron Estates? Mr, Dosh: Area IV, and I do believe that regardless of what has been said that most of the lots do meet those requirements. Councilman Brown: I was on Council when this matter took place and square footage was figured from the center of the street in both cases and not by attorney's ruling at that time. That zoning ordinance didn't say from center or street or where so they got by, by coming from center of the street which normally will give 3,000 to 3,500 if you take in street so the lots are around 17,000 or 16,500. Councilman Barnes: I like the looks of this map better than the last map presented. The lots'are larger and I think they have met hill requirements. It,was quite interesting to me to read a report received from the staff meeting in West Covina in which they suggested there should be a study of hilly areas to find out how many square feet it has to have on certain degree grades. I think Los Angeles County has also gone into this study. I feel that perhaps the lot on flat ground would have enough room on the pad for a home with an adequate area around,it and would be fine, but hilly areas should have 20,000 square feet. I am wondering about the three lots to the east, by cutting:_Ahem'`. differently to get greater square footage I think they would be adequate and could be adjusted. I do like the looks of the other lots. Councilman Snyder: Looking at this map here it could be divided into Area IV lots. This particular one would be wider than it is deep. I think possibly the map could be improved by compromising a lot with some sub -standard lots, and those in Area IV could be larger. I think this map could be improved on yet, .Councilman Towner: I would point out first that the question to answer is whether or not this meets requirements of the varianceo;I feel the Planning Commission made the proper decision because the requirements • for a variance are not met for this particular piece of property. I do not see why we sit here and try to engineer the application until the applicant makes a proper showing for a variance. I think we are required by law to deny, Councilman Snyder: The question is, does he have a problem along this east side in dividing these lots? Although he can get Area IV in there they come out an odd shape. C. C. 7-11-60 Page Eighteen ZONE VARIANCE NO, 312 - continued Councilman, Barnes: I think this is true. His depth is so shallow. • Councilman Towner: As I said before, that is a problem -he has created himself. -He was aware of'the restrictions at the time of purchase. —If he intended to meet City standards he purchased it knowing what would have to be done to meet City requirements, and'if he felt he couldn't he should have purchased more so as to meet requikemettso Mr, Noice:. I:can°t go further because it is right up a hill from that point, otherwise I would have done it, Mayor Heath: With all due consideration to Mr. Noice in that he builds a good house, but the Commission has presented its recommendation for this area which is Area IV. Evidently they have studied it and made this recommendation. I feel I must go along with them because of the fact that if the lot size is lowered here as has been pointed out it is quite possible and probably the neighboring developments will come in and ask for the same privilege and we are then breaking down the area into III. Also, it is true there are lots here just barely over 14,000 square feet. To do this would be opening the door to much more smaller developments than what we want here. We are going to have to draw the line some- where and I think we should take the Planning Commission's recommenda- tions. Councilman Snyder: You are going to have to take some con- sideration of the lot shape you are going to get and you can't ignore that when you get to indicating lot sizes. Councilman Brown: That is correct but you take the recommen- dations of the Planning Commission so far as you can go with them, The Finance Officer has indicated the need of obtaining more money for the City and suggested a raise in taxes and to broaden tax base and every time you cut a lot you broaden tax base, if within reason, and I can't see going 20,000 square feet on this property, Councilman;Barnes: I :think we should make a study in grades versus level land in relation to Area IV as in many cases there could be good development on smaller parcels and come up with yard space rather than those of 20,000 square feet which have land of no use, Councilman Snyder: Is 20,000 square feet estate type area or hilly land? Councilman Brown: Mainly for estate type but Tenman and Cameron included center of street. Counmilman Snyder: If .you look at it in that way hardship is onl'y-in one area in developing IV, lots may'hive some hardship to the east. Co C. 7-11-60 Page Nineteen ZONE VARIANCE NO. 312 - continued Councilman Brown: There was discussion about proper use'of*. variance which I think may be shown here. There is a school directly -west and to the • southeast is Cameron Estates, Mayor Heath: Hasn't that lot directly across been given up as a school site? Councilman Brown: There is still a sign on it and the school still owns it. Councilman Towner: Placing a school in a residential area doesn't mean, necessarily, that adjoining property should change zone. I think the Cameron Estates were to develop in larger lots but at the time it was passed there was legal restriction. Immediately adjacent is existing large lot sizes and property was brought in with intent to develop into small estate character property. These were the conditions and were matters well known to the developers. I think we would have a difficult time to find conditions for a variance here. Where do you find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to this property and not to other property in here? Councilman Barnes: I do not see how any other kind of street plan could come in because it has to be so wide and that is it. Councilman Towner: That is true, but there is no depth'on Area IV, it is width and lot size so by increasing width you could have proper lots along A street and although B street is a different problem again it appears to be a problem created by the applicant and no reason for variance. Councilman Snyder: I don't find anything that actually makes a valid hardship and so would deny. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman.Towner, that Zone Variance No, 312 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 25765 be denied. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes Councilmen Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes Absent: None ZONE CHANGE NO, 165 Proposal to change from existing Los Angeles City Initiated County zoning des*gnations to conform to APPROVED the City of West Covina zoning classifica- tions on the following locations; a) Northeast corner of Barranca and Cameron • b) South side of. Cameron Avenue, between Barranca and Citrus Avenues c) Southwest corner of Citrus and Vine Avenues Approval recommended by the Planning Commission under Resolution Noo925, Maps were presented and the Resolution of the Commission was read, Ca.C, 7-11-60 Page Twenty ZONE CHANGE NO. 165 - continued Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated all thosedesiring to present testimony,should rise and be sworn in, . There being no testimony presented, the hearing was declared closed, Councilman Barnes: In setting up this zone change would you consider grades? I think we will run into a big problem on this. I read the staff report and I want to compliment Mr. Dosh on the report. On some grades you need certain lot sizes but on level lots you can possibly use' smaller lots. Mr, Joseph: We have R-A 40,000 County and must remove this County zoning so the staff was going along with the -planning Commission to be consistent with that around it to designate the zoning, but we are aware of the subdivision in hillside properties and are going to inter- view representatives of the City and County of Los Angeles andSDme surrounding cities and with the City staff go -into a study of this. We do recognize this and feel it is one consideration to be placed in zoning of hillside property. But we went along with the direction of the Commission to make it conform with what is around the area now, Mayor Heath: The area in question tonight, the golf course, is a little rolly but not too bad and could be developed as fairly flat land, Councilman Brown: Easier than Cameron Estates. Councilman Snyder: There are other ways of developing land other than size of lots, but this is the law now and will go along with it. Councilman Towner: The present ordinance requires this be rezoned into City zoning as soon as prac- tical and if that requires action now we should accept the Commission recommendations, otherwise perhaps this may be held`in R-A 40,000 until the current study is finished. City Manager Aiassaea- We have two hill lot problems and the .Swartz -Yoder is a perfect one and staff discussed this and wanted some sliding scale, t6.control - development- in -these -:..hill areas,. Councilman Brown: Perhaps we should act on this tonight as there may be come of these people in these annexations who would like to start development rather than wait, but I do not approve of Barranca and Cameron being in Area IV but still I will go along with this. This tells owners in West Covina they are in 20,000 instead of 40,000 and we can do this prior to indicating something else, • Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that City Initiated Zone Change No. 165 be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission and the City Attorney be instructed to draw up�.the proper ordinance. C. C. 7-11-60 Page Twenty -One PROPOSED-,AAMENDMINCommission recommended -'Approval of - _-- _ City In �atecT �` a proposal to amend Ordinance No. 325 to HELD OVER modify certain regulations pertaining to height limitations of buildings under' Section 401 and Section 701, by Resolution • No. 906. Held over from meeting of June 27, 1960, to this date, for decision. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that Proposed Amendment No. 40 be held over. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 34 Adoption of proposal to amend Ordinance City Initiated No. 325 to modify certain regulations in HELD OVER Ordinance No. 416 (R-P Zone), pertaining to height of buildings, Sec. No. 700.2, recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 820. Hearing continued from meeting of June 27, 1960. Motion by Councilman Browp, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Proposed Amendment No. 34 be held over. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS CONTINUED P.ROJUM C-130 LOCATION: City Yard, west side of Sunset Corporation Yard Slabs Avenue, south of Walnut Creek Wash. Approve plans and specifications City Manager Aiassa stated that Council APPROVED had receved plans of the layout and this is conforming to Division II of the major plan with monies approved in the budget and requires authorization to finish specifications and call for bids. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that the City Engineer be authorized to proceed with the project and advertise for bids. RESOLUTION NO. 1888 The Deputy City Clerk presented: Open 1 foot lot No. 91 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Tract. No. 21639 CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING FOR STREET ('t6ndoah Avenue) AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ADOPTED HERETOFORE GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO -'SAID CITY" For access to Tract No. 25592 and Bassett School District property (Tonopah School) Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther 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. 1888 • PJ C,.C. 7-11-60 RESOLUTION NO; 1889 Approving final map of Tract No. o 25572 (Jame® A;'.Delaney) ADOPTED Page Twenty -Two The Deputy City Clerk presented; "A RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING A.'FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT.NOo 25572; ACCEPTING DEDICATION THEREIN OFFERED; ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SECURITY BOND TO SECURE SAME"_. LOCATION: South of Francisquito Avenue, east of Craig Drive. Accept Ohio Casualty Insurance Company Bond No, 938631 in the amount of.$9,800.00 for street improvements and sanitary sewers. 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, 1889 RESOLUTION NO, 1890 The Deputy City Clerk presented: Open one foot lot No, 14 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE in Tract No, 24813 CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING FOR STREET (Alwood Street) AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ADOPTED HERETOFORE GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO'SAID CITY" LOCATION: East end of Alwood Street in Tract No. 24813 For access to Tract No. 25572 Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther 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. 1890 RESOLUTION NO, 1891 The Deputy City Clerk presented: Accept grant of easement "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE Precise Plan No. 128 CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN (Jack Ip Dubrove) WRITTEN''rNSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE ADOPTED RECORDATION THEREOFt4 LOCATION: East side of Sylvan Avenue, north of Walnut Creek Parkway. Accept for public utility purposes. (No bond or improvement involved) Mayor Heath, Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. L� • C. C. 7-11-60 RESOLUTION NO. 1891 - continued Page Twenty -Three 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. 1891 ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS Accept report and approve payment of reim- OF.REIMBURSEMENT bursement funds. AGREEMENTS Held over from meeting of June 27, 1960, to this date. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that the annual report on status of reimbursement agreements be accepted and approval given fDr the payment of reimbursement funds. r. RECREATION AND PARKS City Manager Aiassa presented and read the action of the Recreation and Parks Commission at their^ meeting of July 7, 1960, relative to placing of bond issue on November ballot. - In order to actuate the capital improvement and land acquisi- tion program of the West Covina Recreation and Park Commission, it is hereby recommended that the citizens of West Covina be permitted to vote on a bond issue in the November general elec- tion. Inclusion of the bond issue on the November ballot would entail the least cost to the taxpayer. In the event the issue does not carry at this time, it is further recommended the pro- posal should again be presented to the voters in six months because of the vital importance of this program to the community. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATION RELATIVE TO Copies received by Council. ZONE CHANGE NO. 162 (Moritz Pick) SAN GABRIEL VALLEY SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA Request of representative to speak before Council. It was indicated that the communication be acknowledged and an invitation be extended to come before Council at their meeting of July 25, 1960. CITY CLERK AUGUST J. GOEBEL, Re: Zone Change No. 157. Request for Attorney for Arthur reconsideration of decision. J. Stinton Mr. Goebel stated that his purpose in writing the communication was to ask for an opportunity to have this matter again placed on the calendar for the purpose of explaining and introducing evidence to explain the terms of the lease which seemed to be of prime importance to Council when decision was made, and to attempt to avoid the time limit and procedure to the City and to the applicant. Mr. Goebel was not present at the • C o C o 7-11-60 GOEBEL _ STINTON - continued: Mr, Goebel - continued: Page Twenty -Four time of the case and discussed it with the City Attorney who had J stated it was a matter entirely within the discrimination of Council. In discussion it was indicated the Resolution denying this use had been adopted on the following meeting at which this case had been - heard, which was May 23, and it was indicated by Mr. Goebel that per- haps the temporary use had been the deciding factor of the decision to deny. Further discussion indicated this matter could only be handled by refiling, that it was not only the temporary use and lease which had been the deciding factor but also the idea that commercial would be difficult to remove if and when the lease pxpiredo There was a sugges- tion of variance but the City Attorney stated the facts would have to be established and Mr. Aiassa read from previous Minutes which indi- cated this idea had been suggested but not looked upon favorably -with statements of Council made to that effect. It was further indicated that Council could not predict or indicate whether there would be any change in decision if the matter was to be placed before them again. ALBERT HANDLER REQUEST for time extension Tract No, 20456 APPROVED Tract No. 20456, to August CITY MANAGER REPORTS Time extension to install street improvements. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that the request of Albert Handler for a time exten- sion to install street improvements in 5, 1961, be approved., HOLLENBECK AND AZUSA The following communication was requested SITE'S to be spread in full upon the Minutes, Bridge Report from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, dated July 5, 1960, addressed to the City Manager: "File No. 20.431 Walnut Creek .Big Dalton Wash to Charter Oak Wash Status of Bridge Plans "This is in reply to your verbal request of June 30, 1960, for clarification of the status of the Azusa Avenue, Hollenbeck '-Street and Lark Avenue crossing of the proposed Walnut Creek. flThe 4r_idge5: structures:.:presep-tly:_spanning the Wash at . Azusa Avenue and Hollenbeck Street are adequate to accommodate -;;the proposed improvement of the channel. However, as verbally requested by your office, and confirmed in our letter to you of October 1, 1959, the district has arranged with the County Road Department to prepare contract plans for the bridge structures at these crossings. As indicated by our above mentioned letter of October 1, the design and construction costs for these new crossings will be the obligation of your City. The estimate of these costs prepared for planning pur- poses at that time is still the best information available. Upon completion of the contract plans the final estimate will be available. Co Co 7-11-60 Page Twenty -Five BRIDGE REPORT - HOLLENBECK AND AZUSA - continued: Flood Control letter - continued. - "The disposition of the crossing at Lark -Ellen Avenue is . uncertain at this time. The Corps of Engineers -has been" -don- ;ducting model studies of the channel to determine the hydraulic characteristics of this reach and to determine the necessary channel widths. This information will be available in the - very near future, at which time it will be possible to deter- mine the district;°s,:obligation, if any, for replacement of this crossing. Preliminary information from the Corps has indicated that the existing structure will accommodate the proposed channel". Yours very truly, M.E.Salsbury, Chief Engineer by W. J.Manetta Sr. Assistant Chief Engineer" Mr, Aiassa stated that this is to advise Council that if we are to get any assistance on Azusa and Hollenbeck we need real ground work. The Council is on record:' for two more bridges to finance if we can't find a way for the Flood Control to replace them. RECREATION AND PARK City Manager Aiassa indicated this had CONTRACT WITH WEST COVINA been reviewed with Mr. Williams and he UNIFIED DISTRICT has no comment. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said agreement. PROJECT C-60 Vincent Avenue Storm City Manager Aiassa read a report of the Drain and street Public Service Director and City Engineer. improvements The report indicated that approximately 3 months ago this was approved relative to street improvements only but since that time there have been negotiations with the Flood Control and Division of Highways to incorporate a section of the bond issue storm drain project 589-B with the project and as a result the project has been revised to include the storm drain portion as well, resulting in a net savings to the taxpayer of approximately $5,OOO.00 to $8,000.00 if the storm drain is constructed at that time and certain changes must be made and will be incorporated into the contract before taking bids 4these changes were indicated on the report) with a cost of street improvements at $30,600.00 and storm drain at $54,800.00, giving a total estimate cost of $85,400.00 to be paid with gas tax funds and drain improvements with bond issue funds. Recommendation was for approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to take bids with the specification changes indicated. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, • that the storm drain plans for Vincent Avenue be approved. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the City Manager be authorized to proceed and advertise for bids for Project C-60.as indicated. Co C. 7-11-60 Page Twenty -Six REPORT ON IRWINDALE City ManAgerAiassh indicated there. hAd STREET NAME CHANGE been a ,point meeting with Baldwin'Park " relative to'Root Street and Puente -Avenue and that Mr, Harold Johnson had requested to be the representative of this City relative -'to meeting with the City of Irwindale regarding Irwindale Avenue name change. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that Mr. Harold Johnson be appointed to meet with the City of Irwin- dale regarding a change of street name° CENSUS REPORT City Manager Aiassa presented and read -a (W. McCann) memo from the West Covina Chamber of Com- merce which would recommend approval of a Chamber contract with Mr. McCann setting forth terms of an immediate one-third payment by the City and the payment of the remaining two-thirds of the cost by the Chamber in the 1961-62 fiscal period subject to approval and/or modificationby the Board of Directors. An excerpt from their minutes of May 5, 1960, was included of action taken on the basis of a City contract with Mr, McCann, The prospect of a Chamber initiated contract was not a part of their consideration at that time-. "Manager La Belle reported the proposed $2,000.00 3-step census examination study by Mr. McCann. It was stated in a discussion with Mr, Paul Cowen and Mr. McCann and resulted in the follow- ing approach:. "Work cost $2,000.00. Chamber to pay for Step 2 'Obtaining, Organizing and Analyzing new census data" and Step 3 "Exploi- tation of new census data". The City would then pay for Step 1 "Organize and rework past data". City to pay approxi- mately $666.00 and the Chamber 10 pay the balance of the $2,000.00. It was moved and seconded that this not be done this year unless it could be made a part of this year's budget and that this could be covered by a footnote to our proposed budget as follows: If we go ahead on the $1,334.00 (our share) the budget should be increased for this service," Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that authorization be given to accept the Chamber of Commerce proposal to have City participate one-third of the cost, $666.00, as soon as this contract is negotiated. SALES TAR City Manager Aiassa indicated a communica- tion sent to the State Board of Equaliga- tion relative to a preliminary review of the statistical data pertaining to sales tax distribution within the City and the possible understating of the actual sales, with the reasons given, and a request for further ':.'investigation by their staff. • PROJECT C-101 Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Extra electrical"work Councilman Barnes, that the City Manager in City Hall addition be authorized to expend $300.00 for a change order relative to Project C-101 as presented in the report as read, - Motion passedon roll call as follows. - Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor.Heath Noes: None Absent: Nome C. C_o 7-11-60 Page Twenty -Seven HARBERT CONTRACT Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by as amended Councilman"Snyder, that the Mayor and City (Cortez Park) Clerk be authorized to negotiate the amended contract relative to the Harbert contract. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes:. None Absent: None FIREWORKS STANDS Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Letter..":of;:appreci4,tion Councilman Towner and carried, that the City Clerk be instructed to send a -letter to the various veterans organizations expressing the City°s appreciation for their excellent cooperation and rapid work done in clearing the fireworks stands in the City. CITY MANAGERS MEETING Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by July 15, 1960 Councilman Brown and carried, that authori- zation be given for the attendance by Mr. Aiassa and Mr. Cowen of the City Managers meeting to be held in Capistrano on July 15, 1960. RESOLUTION NO, 1892 The City Attorney presented: Extending appreciation t9A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE to Daniel Ho Sullivan CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING DANI'RL,H', ADOPTED SULLIVAN FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA" Mayor Heath: 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. 1892 NOVEMBER BALLOT MATERIAL It was the consensus that the City Clerk AND REgUIREMENTS be instructed to send a written communica- tion to the Recreation & Parks Commission advising them of the information pertaining to the time limit, etc., as indicated in the report presented, PAINTING OF CITY HALL City Manager Aiassa indicated that the addi- tion has been constructed and is ready for painting. The monies for this work has •been budgeted in the 1960-61 budget and it was requested Council select the colors the building should be done in as indicated in'the report. It was indicated the matter should proceed and that the City Manager should pick the color, 0 Co Co 7-11-60 Page Twenty -Eight CITY MANAGER°S VACATION August 26 or 29, 1960, to September 9, 1960. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by - Councilman Barnes and carried, that the vacation dates as indicated by the City Manager for his vacation be approved and that he be given permission to leave the State. REQUEST TO PERMIT La Puente Festival of Lights - July 22, 1960 ANTIQUE FIRE TRUCK at 7:00 Po M. IN PARADE No objections were made and Fire Chief°s recommendations were accepted, TENTATIVE BUDGET Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by APPROVAL Councilman Barnes, that the tentative budget for 1960-61 in the amount of $2,567,537.00, as submitted by the Finance Officere•and City Manager and corrected by the City Council, be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None City Manager Aiassa indicated there had been posted with Council the 1960-61 "sessed valuation at.$73,000,000.00 which did not include public utilities which would probably exceed $3,000,000.00, so the total valuation would be $76,000,000.00. However, budget revenue was placed at $73,000,000.00. CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. 1893 The City Attorney presented: Confirming the assess- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ment of Lark Ellen Avenue CITY OF WEST COVINA CONFIRMING THE ASSESS - and other streets MENT OF LARK ELLEN AVENUE AND OTHER STREETS A111-57-6 AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY"(A°11-57-6) Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion'by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Noe o None Absent- None Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Said Resolution was given No. 1893 RESOLUTION NO, 1894 Determing necessity of construction of sanitary sew®r°s as health measure A°11-57-3 The City Attorney presented: '•A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DETERMINING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWERS ARE NECES- PARY AS A HEALTH MEASURE IN LARK.ELLEN AVENUE AND OTHER STREETS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY" (AIII-57-3) Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. C o C o 7-11-60 Page Twenty -Nine RESOLUTION NO, 1894 - continued 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. 1894 Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman -Brown and-cakried'; that the City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams and Sorenson, be authorized to file a petition with the Court to determine the validity of assessment district proceedings in District A111-57-3, RESOLUTION NO. Granting consent and jurisdiction to the HELD OVER County of Los Angeles on Alwood Street and other streets and rights -of -way. RESOLUTION NO. 1895 The City Attorney presentedo. Approving Precise Plan "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE of Design No, 199 'CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING PRECISE PLAN ADOPTED OF DESIGN NO. 199" (Horny` Corporation) Mayor Heath. Hearing no objections, we will waive'fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Towner, 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, 1895 INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: Ordinance rezoning "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE certain.prdmises CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING WEST COVINA (Horny Corporation). MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES" (Horny Corporation) Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that further reading of the body of.the Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that the Ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. Motion passed on roll call as follows. Ayes. Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath • Noes: None Absent.. None Co Co 7-11-60 Page Thirty INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented. - Ordinance rezoning "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE certain premises CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING WEST COVINA (Moritz Pick) MUNICIPAL CODE'SO'__AS TO REZONE CERTAIN • PREMISES" (Moritz Pick) Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that further reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Councilman Towner: The law provides for two readings of this Ordinance and before it becomes final the purpose is to permit a period of further consideration and perhaps avoid hasty action. I think that in connection with this particular Ordinance that perhaps the second reading gives the opportunity that Council needs to consider two aspects of this matter. One is the commercial zoning on San Bernardino Road and the other is the small size of the subdivision lots in the R-3 zoning, and I would suggest this matter not be passed and that it be deferred. I would suggest that we reconsider our action here and reconsider our votes and if we desire to make some referral to the Planning Commission relative to the cxommercial area and the subdivision lot size, I think this would be a good time to rectify what seems to be a mistake in zoning. Councilman Snyder: I would go along with Councilman Towner in the essence of his statement. Councilman Brown: The Planning Commission had this property in front of them a considerable length of time and the same testimony was presented to them as to use The minimum lots meet the requirements of the City and if we wanted larger lots I think it was our responsibility to get a larger lot size in R-3. I do not think we can hold up someone. We made similar zone changes tonight and the reason I went for them was not to hold up owners any more than was necessary. There was no difference in testimony and I see no reason to refer this back to the Commission since there was the same testimony presented and as I understand it from the City Attorney it doesn°t have to be referred back. Councilman Barnes: There was no new testimony presented to us other than that which was presented to the Planning Commission, If there was, it didn°t appear to me after reading the Minutes. Councilman Towner: reasons pertaining to the for. However, he bought getting a rezoning and a in his pocket, but he is best use of the land. That may be true, but the Planning Commission action came before us and we acted on it and it was pointed out that for economic individual that he should have what he asked this property zoned for what it was and is highly concentrated use which means more money not necessarily entitled to that but to the I would go along with the R-3 as granted, but if it is cut into small lot sizes we will get a minimal development that is not desired or wanted in the City and is not in accord with the policy of Council. Also there is no compelling testimony to start a rash of commercial along San Ber- nardino Road and I am only asking Council here to take time to consider - a reconsideration to change their action, C. Co 7-11-60 Page Thirty -One INTRODDCTIMOF ORDINANCE - MORITZ PICK..- continued: Councilman Brown: Property directly across the Wash' -is- M-l' and so far as I am concerned I would want it to be compatible with property in the City of Covina, Councilman Barnes: There is commercial to the west, M-1:_to the north, and I think this is compatible, Mayor Heath: I stated there was commercial to the west of this property in the form of permanent buildings and I tried to point out at that time, and possibly now make it more clear, that if we feel that by putting '•R" zoning of this particular piece of property right out to the road that Covina is going to remove their adjacent commercial, I think we are barking up the wrong tree. I do not think they will do it. I feel commercial zoning on there is more justified than R-3 because in the Planning Commission statement it says that Covina is planning M-1 down to San Bernardino Road. Also, I do not feel that the present commercial area in Covina to the west of this piece of property is ever going to go to R-1 or R-3, nor be any less than commercial. In this, I feel, is why we should go to commercial and if we have R-3 there we will only penalize ourselves. So far as the lot sizes are concerned, I would not argue with that; maybe they are too small and maybe not. Councilman Snyder: In some ways you are assuming what Covina is going to do and it is not a stated policy and I would personally see the commercial held up until we get together with Covina and get an over-all plan instead of just trying to beat each other to the zoning and making it a fight. Councilman Brown: In front of the Commission was a letter.. that we consider this as manufactu3ing property, not C-2o I believe if you check with the Planning Commission this was not denied on the merits of the case but because the man wanted a decision and didn't want to wait on it so long because they wanted a study on it. Councilman -Towner: I think what Councilman Snyder has indicated is what I am trying to point out. I feel that we have rushed out here and zoned this C-2 resulting in possibly a strip zoning the same as on Azusa Avenue, and it would seem to me it would behoove us to stop and look at the whole picture before we make this zoning here. I do not think it is the intention of Covina to give anything less than here and I think -we should bring the property up to a level with it. We had three actions which approved R-3 on a certain portion, another approving the subdivision map of R-3 zoning, and the other action was . approving commercial zoning. My only objection is to the two actions; the subdivision map which I consider grossly inadequatelor an R-3 development in the City and to the IT" zoning which has been done without any adequate study. If we held those two matters we would be acting more in keeping with the previous policies of the City Council and to maintain our standards. Councilman Brown: The map meets our requirements,on what grounds can we hold it on? C. Co 7-11-60 Page Thirty -Two INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE - MORITZ PICK - continued Councilman Towner.- The same grounds that you held up -the - Weisel property, to get very -strict re- quirements on the property, And it is approximately the same size and this has always been the goal wd-have been shooting for before. He could place beautiful units -here -but he wants the smallest size lot to place apartments on, and there is no reason we have to permit that. Councilman Browne The Weisel property hurt the City more than this could ever hurt it. Councilman Barnes: I do not feel that West Covina here -has - started anything or has set the precedent of any kind because if there has been any precedent established or set it has been set by the City of Covina and the County because there is "C" zoning on the one side and "M" on the other, and I think this use is compatible with those zonings. Councilman Brown: It was previously insinuated that we were doing this in retaliation and to oppose Covina, Councilman Snyder: There is "R" zoning across the street and if this starts off in this way there will be nothing. Mayor Heath: Perhaps it is too bad we didn°t study this before. Mr. Pick stated he had commitments and wanted to go ahead with this and he told the Commission the same thing and wanted approval on the R-3, if nothing else, so he could go ahead on this thing. If he does have this you can't hold a man up for an indefinite period while we go through a study because it is not fair to the person. Councilman Towner: The problem here is that Pick buys pro- perty and buys it knowing it is not zoned for what he is seeking to put on it so he wants to put it through and it is only to his benefit, economically, and to his profit, but this is no reason to put a zoning on the property. ,- Councilman Snyder: There is no question of Pick's motives or intentions but I still think it is spot zoning and that it is opening it up to completely uncontrolled spot zoning on San Bernardino Road, and I still think we can get together with Covina and the County and see if we can plan this whole thing to really get something here. Councilman Towner: The man has his zoning, it is R-1 zoning, but he is asking for a change in zoning to make some more money. What alternatives are open in the went some members of Council might feel this action might not be appropriate relative to the C-1 portion? • Mr. Williams: You can hold it and if you introduce it you can still refer it for study and -it does not have to be passed within a., certain time. You can hold it and refer it. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Baraj t4a.t the Ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilman Brown, Barnes, Mayor Heath Does: Councilmen Towner, Snyder Absent: None C. Co 7-11-60 Page Thirty -Three INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE - MORITZ PICK - continued Mr. Williams: The map isn'-t good' -without zoning but you might approve the zoning 'if the map' is acceptable and disapprove if the map . isn't acceptable. RESOLUTION NO, The City Attorney presented: HELD OVER "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING PRECISE ­PLAN' OF DESIGN NO, 233" (W & T Construction Co.) Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that this resolution be held for further study. Indication was made to a letter from Diane Whittaker of 305 Pima Street that there was no objection to two-story and Councilman Brown stated that if there were such a letter he would like to see it. RESOLUTION NO. 1896 The City Attorney presented: Granting Unclassified "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Use Permit No. 43 CITY OF WEST COVINA GRANTING UNCLASSIFIED ADOPTED USE PERMIT NO, 43" (Christian Schience Society) Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: Councilman Brown Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1896 INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: An ordinance amending "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Sections 3123 and 3124 CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTIONS 3123 of West Covina AND 3124 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE Municipal Code RELATING TO CHANGES OF STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS" Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that further reading of the Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, that the Ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None C. Co 7-11-60 Page Thirty -Four RESOLUTION NO. 1897 The City Attorney presented. - "ending Resolution "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Noo 1072 CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING RESOLUTION. ADOPTED NO. 1072 RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF • THE CITY ATTORNEY" Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Towner, 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. 1897 DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that Demands in the amount of $69,078.38 as shown on Demand Sheets C-209, C-210 and C-211 be approved; this to include fund transfers in the amount of $47,194.98. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None It was requested that the City Manager present a report and list of facts relative to the La Verne Sewer System at the study meeting of Monday, July 18, 1960. MRS. VAN DAME: What are you doing.for the 14 year olds in the recreation program, anything? Maybe swimming pools would be the answer to them, City Manager Aiassa: That is something we can't answer. Mrs. Van Dame: I have something to say regarding making decisions on the Agenda, They should be decided by full membership of Council and not by members in the hall at recess. Don't get into this habit, it doesn't look good for the Council or for the City of West Covina, There is also the problem of things being done administratively and I do not think that should be, with all due respect to Mr. Aiassa and • Mr, Joseph, I do not think it is up to them to make decisions they are not hired to do. You shouldn't allow the sidewalk sale at the May Company, you're making West Covina a Boyle Heights idea. Co C. 7-11-60 Page Thirty -Five FIREWORKS DISPLAY It was the consensus that the City - AT MT, SAN ANTONIO Manager draft a letter to be'signed by the Mayor, commending the worthwhile community endeavor relative to the • recent fireworks display held at Mt. San Antonio, Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that there being no further business the meeting be adjourned at 1230 A. M. Study meeting on Monday, July 18, 1960. ATTEST: UA City Clerk APPROVED2::: F 6/0 Mayor