Loading...
08-08-1960 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA August 8, 1960 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Heath -at 7:45 P. M. in the --- West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council- man Brown, with the invocation given by the Rev. Henry Kent of the Community Presbyterian Church. ROLL r AT.I. Present: Mayor Heath, Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder Others Present: Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk Mr. Harry C. Williams, City Attorney Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Coordinator Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public Service Director Absent: Councilman Barnes APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 7, 1960 - Approved as submitted July 11, 1960 CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Approved as submitted PROJECT C-128 FOR STREET LOCATION: Vine Avenue, east of Azusa Avenue IMPROVEMENTS TO APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Copies of the report submitted by the City AND AWARD INFORMAL BID Engineer and Public Service Director had APPROVED been presented to Council. City Manager Aiassa stated that there had been only two contractors who had submitted bids,- they were Crowell and Larson in the amount of $2,364.25 and Jasper N. Haley in the amount of $2,172.30.- The recommen'da'tion was to award the contract to Jasper N. Haley, with a purchase order to be prepared constituting the official award of contract. It had been anticipated that possibly Crowell and Larson would submit the low bid since they had a contract for work relative to Tract No. 22024, but Jasper N. Haley had submitted a lower price on the excavation item which made that bid the lower of the two and there- fore Jasper N. Haley should receive the contract as the lowest respon- sible bidder. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that the plans and specifications of Project No. C-128 be approved, and that the bid be awarded to Jasper N. Haley in the amount of $2,172.30 as the lowest responsible bidder. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes 4- P_k Co C. 8-8-60 TRACT NO. 21480 Accept street and sanitary sewer improvements and release bond - (Aneas Corporation) APPROVED TRACT NO, 24813 Accept street and sanitary sewer improvements and release bond (James A. Delaney) APPROVED Page Two LOCATION; East side of Sunset Avenue, north of Francisquito Avenue. Michigan Surety Company Bond No. 207926, in the amount of $50,860,00., LOCATION: South of Francisquito Avenue, east of Walnut Avenue. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company Bond No. 928012 in the amount of $19,000.00. PRECISE PLAN NO. 76 (1405) LOCATION: East side of Trojan Way, Accept street improvements south side of Merced Avenue, west side (C. J. Hurst, Jr.) of Sunset Avenue. APPROVED (Curb, gutter and pavement) Deeds accepted by Resolutions on May 23, 1960. City Clerk Flotten„ Let the record show that we have the inspector's final report on all three items of improvements going in and that the recommendation is for the acceptance of the improvements and the release of bonds where bonds have been posted. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that the improvements indicated in Tract No. 21480, Tract No. 24813 and Precise Plan No. 76 be approved, and authorization be given for the release of the bonds where bonds have been posted. DISTRICT A'11-57-7 Accept sewer facilities and release bond APPROVED PROJECT C-123 A'11-57-7 Accept street APPROVED improvements LOCATION: Vincent Avenue and Puente Avenue Sewer District. Continental Casualty Company Bond No. 15 2 4154 in the amount of $87,033.38. LOCATION: Lyall Avenue from Rowland Avenue to 630' northerly. Resurfacing in connection with the con- struction of Sanitary Sewer District A'11-57-7. City Clerk Flotten: Let the record show that we have the final inspector's reports on these cases. There was a separate contract passed upon, which was for the resurfacing job in the amount of $1,100.14, which was previously approved by Council. The recommendation is for accept- ance with the release of the bond 35 days from date of acceptance. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried, that sewer facilities be approved in District A111-57-7 and release of the bond authorized 35 days from date of acceptance, and that the street improvements in Project C-123 be approved. Co C. 8-8-60 PROJECT SS-7 - Accept sewer facilities and release bond (Wescove School) 0 APPROVED PROJECT SS-11 Accept sewer facilties and release bond (Louisa Ave. Sewer) APPROVED .Page Three LOCATION. California and Vine Avenues. Continental Casualty Company's Bond No. 15 2 4718-in the amount of . $1,985.65 subject to Notice of Completion procedure LOCATION° Louisa and Astell Avenues, Subject to Notice of Completion procedure. City Clerk Flotten; Let the record show that we have the inspector's final report and completion reports. In the ease of LouisaAvenue, that was a small job, a small section of sewer that had previously been left out and involves homes at 1319 and 1323 East Louisa Avenue. The improvements are now all in and the recommendation is for acceptance. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that the sewer facilities in Project SS-7 be approved and authorization be given to release the bond and that sewer facilities in Project SS-11- be approved, with both subject to Notice of Completion procedure. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT LOCATION° Hollenbeck Street and Green - NO. 24, TRACT NO. 21425 ville Drive. (W. E. Hardy) APPROVED For sanitary sewers City Manager Aiassa; The Council has received full reports on this item. This is in Tract Noo21425 and the total construction cost is $10,315.25. It is a standard reimbursement agreement to be paid back to Mr. Hardy. There are approximately 11 lots. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that Reimbursement Agreement No. 24 be approved, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be directed to negotiate the agreement. COMMUNICATION FROM The City Clerk presented and read a WEST COVINA EMPLOYEES communication from the West Covina ASSOCIATION Employees Association, per Mr. Jack Rogers, President, expressing apprecia- tion to Council, on behalf of the City employees, for their cooperation relative to salary increases and health plan benefits. • PROCLAIMING OCTOBER The City Clerk presented and read a AS "J.W,V.,A," MONTH communication from the Jewish War Veterans Auxiliary No, 1776 requesting a proclamation by the City for the month of October to be known as "J;W,V,A," Month Mayor Heath so proclaimed October as "J,W.V.,A," Month. • C. C. 8-8-60 RESOLUTION NO. 1908 Expressing appreciation to Frank Go Bonelli ADOPTED Page Four The City Clerk presented and read: "A,RESOLUTION OF THE -CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA HONORING FRANK G. BONELLI FOR THE VALUABLE SERVICES HE IS RENDEREDING TO. THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES"' Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Noes: None Absent: Councilman SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Barnes PROJECT NO. C-60 LOCATION.- Vincent Avenue, from Glendora Street and storm drain Avenue to Garvey Avenue. improvement BID AWARDED Bids were opened in the office of the SERVICE CONSTR. CO, City Clerk, as advertised, on August 4, 1960. Affidavit of publication on July 21st and 28, 1960, of the notice of the bid opening was received from the West Covina Tribune, and as a news item in the Green Sheet on July 21, 1960. The bids received were as follows: CORRECTION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION CO.. $ 85,019,72 $85,097730 J. E. HADDOCK 85,387.99 SULLY -MILLER CONTRACTING CO. 86,788.64 86,788.54 COX BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO. 87,493.67 E. M. PENN CONSTRUCTION CO. 89,183.26 TAYLOR & HOOVER, INC. 90,507.90 K.E.C. COMPANY 94,455.53 J. A. THOMPSON & SON 97, 778. 84 GOLICH CONSTRUCTION CO. 98,830.65 10% bid bonds were received with all bids The report of the City Engineer and Public Service Director indicated that the low bid exceeds the approved City Engineer's estimate by approxi- mately $1,400.00. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain approval from the Division of Highways prior to awarding the contract and it should be noted that in our agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for Project 589-B, the District's obligation is to deposit advance funds for the storm drain prior to the award of the contract. A summary of the bids has already been transmitted to the Division of Highways and their approval is anticipated in the early part of next week and the Flood Control District has indicated that their deposit of approximately $56,000.00 will be received within ten days. With these facts and in reviewing the bids received, it was recommended the award of contract go to Service Construction Company, as the lowest res- ponsible bidder, with bid bonds to be returned to the unsuccessful bidder, with the award of subject contract to be subject to approval of the Division of Highways and receipt of funds for the storm drain portion of the project from the County Flood Control District. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that the award of contract on Project No. C-60 go to the Service (construction Company in the amount of $85,097.50, as the lowest responsibe bidder, with all bid bonds returned to the unsuccessful bidder, subject to the approval by the State Division of Highways and the receipt of funds for the storm drain portion of the project from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Co Co 8-8-60 PROJECT NO. C-60 - continued Motionpassed on roll call as follows,- Ayes. - Noes Absent: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath None Councilman Barnes Page Five PROJECT C-130 LOCATION: 825 South Sunset Avenue BID AWARDED JASPER N. HALEY Concrete slabs at the City Corporation Yard Bids were opened in the office of the City Clerk, as advertised, on August 4, 1960. Notice of Publication on July 21st and 28, 1960, was received from the West Covina Tribune, and as a news item in the Careen Sheet on July 19, 1960. The bids received were as follows: JASPER N. HALEY $ 2,624.31 TAYLOR & HOOVER, INC. 3,295.00 PENNANT CONSTRUCTION CO, 4,085.00 M. C. LAR'SON 4,410.00 EASTLAND DEVELOPMENT CO, 4,708.00 MAC -WELL CO, 5,167.00 10% bid bonds were received with all bids Recommendation was that the bid be awarded to Jasper No Haley as the lowest responsible bidder and that all bid bonds be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. City Clerk Flotten stated that the City Council had previously approved the plans and specifications relative to this project. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that the bid be awarded to Jasper N. Haley, relative to Project C-130,,' as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $2,624.31, and that all other bid bonds be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes PROJECT NO. C-131 BID AWARDED SOUTHERN ELECTRIC OF EL'MONTE Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath LOCATION-. 825 South Sunset Avenue. Electrical installation at City Yard Review of informal bids received August 4, 1960. •It was indicated in the report that although it appears the original estimate for the electrical wiring was low, sufficient funds are avail- 'able,and the recommendation was for the award of contract for the elec- trical wiring to Southern Electric of E1 Monte as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $1,065.00. Bids received were as follows: SOUTHERN ELECTRIC $ 1,065.00 SPRINGER ELECTRIC CO, 1,218.00 B. W. WHITLOCK 1,468.00 C. Co 8-8-60 Page Six PROJECT NO. C-131 - continued Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown,, that the bid be awarded to Southern Electric of El Monte, relative to Project C-131, as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $1,065.00. • Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes.- Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes HEARINGS ZONE VARIANCE NO. 317 LOCATION.- 1432 Puente Avenue, between Safeway Stores, Inc. Irwindale and Yaleton Avenues. HELD OVER AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT The Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 932, on July 6, 1960, approved the request for identifying signs with certain conditions of modification. Appealed by the applicant on July 15, 1960. Maps were presented by the City Clerk and the Resolution of the Planning Commission was read. City Clerk Flotten: Let the record show that 52 notices were sent out to property owners in the area and the publication of notice of hearing was published in the West Covina Tribune on -July 28, 1960. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated that Council was operating under Ordinance No, 502. Mr. Po Egly: I am an attorney representing the appli- cants and we would request a continuance of this matter in that we feel that the controversy could possibly be settled on a staff level and would like the matter held over for two weeks. If it is not possible for this to be settled on staff level, we will then present our evidence in support of the appeal. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder and carried, that Zone Variance No. 317 be held over for two weeks at the request of the applicant as indicated. UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT LOCATION: 3306 Virginia Avenue, between NO, 47 and Barranca and Oregon Streets. PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO, 237 (Frank Jo Ruppert) The Planning Commission denied the re - DENIED quest for permission to operate a recre- ation club, privately owned, in Zone R-A; and denied the request for the adoption of a Precise Plan for the same on July 6, 1960 under their Resolution No. 928. Appealed by applicant on July 15, 19600 Maps were presented by the City Clerk and the Resolution was read. City Clerk Flotten.-- Let the record show that 26 notices were mailed to property owners in the area and notice of this public hearing was pub- lished in the West Covina Tribune on July 28, 1960. Co Co 8-8-60 Page Seven UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 47 - continued Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated that Council was - operating under Ordinance No. 502 and that all those desiring to pre- sent testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. • IN FAVOR Mr. F. J. Ruppert I would like to request that this matter 3306 Virginia Avenue be held over until -such time'as each member of the Council could visit the --- premises, personally, in order to pro- perly judge this case. The reason this request is being made is that the property is too large an estate for single family dwellings. The maintenance and upkeep has grown prohibitive up to this present time. It is well suited for such a club because we have all the necessary facilities on the premises such as swimming pools, tennis courts, pool hall. It is large enough for such a use, completely fenced in, and has trees and shrubs so as to not interfere with the neighbors on the streets such as Virginia Avenue and Campana Flores. The property is only visible from the back exterior of the building, but the property itself is invisible from the street and nothing could be observed from the street. It will create no nuisance to the neighbors. It is unfeasible to subdivide and in order to subdivide, it would be necessary to tear down the existing facilities already there, destroy- ing the natural beauty that the property has built into it. These things are why I make the request that Council members look at the property before rendering a decision so as to form their own opinion, IN OPPOSITION Mr, W. Graydon 3102 Virginia Avenue Generally speaking, the feel it would reduce the the value and aspect of for way by such a move. I represent the West Covina Highlands Association and we have three speakers here tonight to present our objections in detail to this proposal° objections here are self-centered in that we value of our properties and generally speaking the neighborhood would be affected in an ulter- There is evidence that properties of this nature, where the owners have resorted to other uses to enable themselves to carry them, have ended in a steady degrading of the property. Mrs. Dale Rossiter I have just bought property in this 3146 Virginia Road area which is under three acres and we have the hopes of subdividing. There are two parcels which we have, one to •the east and one to the west, that would go along with the existing restrictions, and we feel that we could improve our property and make money on it and still keep in line with what is on Virginia already, Mrs. W. Snead Our lots back up to this property. They 30 Campana Flores have quite a few children over there and this is the top of a cup where we live -- some 6 or 7 homes on our edge of the rim, and children are having fun on his side of the hill. When this club reaches 100 the question as to just how liveable our area would be with • C. Co 8-8-60 Page Eight UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 47 - continued this noise coming across this small and attractive valley is an import- ant one, This is the main point from where we live because the house is some distance from the homes on Campana,Flores, but the noise would be very bad for the entire area, I am speaking for the entire row of homes that backs to this property--..7 Mr. D. N. Cullen The two previous speakers stated their 3150 E. Virginia specific objections which are represen- tative pre . sen- tative of the people surrounding this property. You will find there was a petition signed by 28 property owners surrounding this particular piece of property which is in objection. There was one signature not on the petition as presented at the time of the Commission hearing. I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. H. Saunders, addressed to Mr. Ruppert, with a copy to me, which states:..:,_, that the indications given that he was in favor of this proposal Are not so and that it is his feeling that there are other uses more com- patible with the neighbors adjoining on the west of Mr. Ruppert's pro- perty. Those entirely surrounding this particular piece of property have great objection to this use and feel that it will set a precedent for older homes in the area. There is a safety factor which is important here relative to the mem- bers coming and going to this facility. There is another important factor which is stated clearly in the Resolution and at the meeting of the Commission in that they found that this was a use not subject to an Unclassified Use Permit so in some respects this hearing may not be necessary. Indications were that a club facility needs a variance rather than an Unclassified Use Permit in the R-A.classification, and in a variance consideration must be given relative to hardship, which is not a reason for the permit. Mr. Graydon'. This testimony sums up the comments of our group in this matter, We represent the neighborhood, although there may be others who may desire to speak against it in the area. The City Clerk presented and read two communications in protest from Dr. M. W. Johnson, D. 0., of 40 Campana Flores, and Mrs. E. E. McCallister of 3329 E. Virginia. Mr. Ruppert stated he would not present any rebuttal. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Towner: I do not think it was brought out in testimony as to the intent of the use here, other than by name. Does that appear on the application? Mr. Ruppert: I am not sure whether it appears on the application or not, but the intent is to have a private recreational club with a limited membership. It will be a non-profit organization and I will rent facilities to the club and thus handle the expense of main- tenance. I will still maintain residence in the area. C. Co 8-8-60 Page Nine UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 47 - continued CityClerk Flotten: It is indicated on the Application as -- a privately owned and operated recrea- tional club. Councilman Towner requested a reading of uses permitted under -an Un- classified Use Permit which was done and then stated that As -he would understand it a recreational center, privately owned, is specifically excluded from an R-1 zone and couldn't be lawfully allowed. However, Mr. Joseph stated this is R-a and the permit use specifically states it is excluded from R-1, R-2 and all R-3_zdnep,aHowever, Councilman Snyder stated he didn't feel the question had been answered and he de- sired to know whether they do need an Unclassified Use Permit here or a variance, according to the code. Mr. Williams: It is not in my realm to decide, but I can explain to you what the code pro- vides. As just read, the code provides that if this is a recreational center, privately operated, it can be done in any zone except R-1, 2 or 3 with an Unclassified Use Permit. However, if it is a club or lodge this is not one of the things granted under this -- it is not automatically permitted in R-a-- and would go in only by variance or amendment of the ordinance. It is for you to determine from the evidence what is the proposed use. Councilman Towner: Is this to be a limited membership club? Mr. Ruppert: Yes, it would be limited membership. Mayor Heath: To how many? Mr. Ruppert: I would say about 100 members would be as far as it would go. Councilman Towner: It would not, then, be open to the public and operated by you? Mr. Ruppert: it would be open to the members which would be the public. The public could buy a membership in the club and it would be owned by me. Mayor Heath: Can this area be seen by houses in the back? Mr. Ruppert: No. Mayor Heath: Can any portion be seen? Mr. Ruppert: The houses on Campana Flores, property directly behind me, if they look real hard they can see through the Eucalyptus trees. The tennis court has honeysuckle vine woven solidly through the fence so they couldn't see through that. They could if someone went close to the Lanai next to the swimming pool, but other than that they could not see into this area. Mayor Heath: Does this club provide sleeping quarters? Mr. Ruppert: No, only for myself, but not for member- ship. Councilman Snyder: I think it has been determined this is club and by the code we can,'.t act on this request. C. C. 8-8-60 Page Ten UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 47 - continued Councilman Towner: I am inclined to agree.' The Planning - Commission determined it on the basis of the evidence.and it doesn't seem to be a recreation center privately owned but what would be probably called a • club belonging to members only. I think, further, that even if this were an Application for a variance -;- although there is no such'..issue in front of us, there would'be no show- ing so far as particular hardship on this piece of property. Councilman Brown: I feel it would be a poor decision to -- turn this down just because it was rejec- ted on improper filing. I have seen the property and two or three properties adjacent to it,and if this is left hanging in the air just because it is not filed right it will be right back in again. I believe if this is passed it will have a great effect on what is done with the surrounding vacant property. This is going to be hard to subdivide and get the full money out of it, but I do not feel this is the time until all the property in the area is considered. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that Unclassi- fied Use Permit No. 47 and Precise Plan of Design No. 237 be denied. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Noes: None Absent, Councilman Barnes ZONE CHANGE NO. 166 Edward L. La Berge, Jr. REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath LOCATION: East side of Azusa Avenue, between Eckerman Avenue and Danes Drive. Planning Commission, by Resolution No.940 on July 20, 1960, recommended approval of request "To highest and best use zone" Maps were presented by the City Clerk and the Resolution of the Commission was read. City Clerk Flotten: Let the record show that 34 notices were mailed to property owners in the area and that publication of notice of this hearing was in the West Covina Tribune of July 28, 1960. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing, stated that Council was operat- ing under Ordinance No. 502 and that all those desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. IN FAVOR Mr. E. La Berge, Jr. To digress a bit, it is too bad these 20510 Rancho San Jose Dr. things cost money because I am meeting Covina all you nice fellows and future custo- mers here, but the expense to apply for these requests all the time is quite a bit. You have a request for the proper And best use and we do not think the Planning Commission, some members of which are in the audience, in granting possible approval for such zoning as R-2 and R-3, realized all the facts, This land which was indicated for R-2 is 150 feet in depth, 75 feet deep going back from Azusa. There is a 20 to 25 foot setback on Azusa C. C. 8-8-60 ZONE," CHANIIE; N0, n.I:6f - `c'ontinued Mr. E. La Berge, Jr. - continued: Page Eleven and 100 feet from nearest R-1 for two story height which leaves only a 25 foot building which would be ridiculous and the architects and • builders would bear that up. The apartments further up are on very deep lots with alleys in the rear and no houses behind them. 'If we had units here, or on R-2, it would tower over the houses right behind them. As for R-2, no one is currently employing R-2 in the City, building -wise. There is only seven -hundredths of one percent in land in West Covina zoned R-2 and 99% of that is taken up with churches and they were in that zone because that was the zoning churches went in under. With deferenc3eto the Planning Commission, who thought they were doing a good step in the right direction, we can't use R-2 as it is not being employed in the City. Only R-2 is used as variances for R-3 or better. There were two recommendations from the Planning Director, with the plan, for R-®P uses. We can't use R-2 and R-3. I believe that R-P is the best use and we ask that you support Mr. Joseph in his recommendations for R-P here. Mr. Smithy and Mr. Smith, both living adjacent to this, are in favor and are on record as favoring this request. This can only be for R-P use and we ask you to go for the highest and best uses, such as R-P, here, Mrs. G. La Berge I imagine that you present would like to 20510 Ranch San Jose Dr. see all vacant land in West Covina being Covina used. We have been trying eight months to use these three lots and we would appreciate it very much if you could figure out the actual practical use. We are in the real estate business and the construction of all cases is based on financing. It is our business to have current information on it. After consultations we could find no loan company who would consider R-1 or R-2 on Azusa, and they also refused to loan on R-3 here because of the lack of depth of this R-3o They do make excellent loans on R-3 on a major thoroughfare, only it is with larger develop- ment. We were not refused any loan at all but what counts is how many units,so regardless the loan was discounted because of the shallow- ness of the lots, Covina Sands has 60 units and apartment units operate like hotels. They get a transient trade but the permanent tenants want apartments further away from noise so the front units get less rent and so depth is important. We couldn't consider R-2 and R-3 because we couldn't get good financing so with this zoning the land sits idle. We have a list of tenants for the R-P such as architects, escrow offices, etc., and we can, immediately, rent R-P building use. These types of uses care little for space but want to be noticed, so shallow land is ideal for such businesses. It is interesting to note that in discussion with loan companies on refinancing that they think of this as potentially "C". It has not been studied for that use but they know it could be acceptable imme- diately for "C" Co Co 8-8-60 ZONE CHANGE NO. 166 - continued Mrs.Go La Berge - continued: Mr. Thompson of the Planning Commission hearing when R-2 and R-3 was indicated at each hearing, and if he were present more chance for getting R-Po Page Twelve was on his vacation at'our la-st and he has been in favor of R-P at that time we may have had Mr. Launer of the Planning Commission wanted the front two lots R-P and the rear lot R-3o He thought all the vacant land on the east side should be R-P, but only one lot depth. But we would be using the back lot for parking and would have to cut the building along the front and leave a space between them to meet the parking requirements. It would be useable this way but would cut the building space to half. We would hate to lose the parking on the rear lot but we appreciated Mr. Launer°s attempt to make a part of this land useable. If, however, you would feel this is an intelligent plan to have the two lots in front R-P, we could revise the plan and use the front lot; but the rear lot would be sold at a loss, which we do not like, but it is better than to have land that is unuseable and Mr. Launer°s ideas were practical, which we appreciated. Two members of the Commission were in favor of R-P on at least two lots and we think that if the other three members of the Commission really understood the loan problem they would not have voted to zone this R-2 and R-3o The tax assessor considers land potential and this is being assessed more than°R-P value, which is a burden to us, IN OPPOSITION Mr. W. Ho Cufflin This is the second time we have been here 1839 E. Ebkerman Ave. on this same matters. There have been three times we have been before the Planning Commission, It is now getting to be a burden upon the residents of Danes Drive and Eckerman Avenue and also a burden on the petitioners. The petitioners went into this land with their eyes wide open and if not they went in with the knowledge and foresight which people in their business are required to have, or should have had, over the ordinary person who would buy and sell the land and on the strength of what they were told, they should have made further investigation prior to purchase. But they were hoping that the Commission and Council would change the zoning conditions that have existed for a number of years and they should have known the master plan in progress for the changing of zones along Azusa and in the City. In the event this Council decides to rezone this they are definitely going into spot zoning because of what is proposed immediately south of the three lots of land, This Council can change the zone to be sure, but changing of the zone will not change the land restrictions running with those three lots and it can stay that way for 10 years and maybe more depending on how the people in the tract act regarding the property. We bought our land in good faith and went into an area that was R-la These people want R-P. That wasn't successful so they ask for the best possible use you think this land is for. The Commission decides Co Co 8-8-60. ZONE CHANGE NO. 166 - continued Mr. W. Ho Cufflin- continued. Page Thirteen it is best for Rm8 and R-2, but they aren't satisfied with this even. ,though they came in with an irregular petition. They ask for nothing • but that the Council and Commission take the burden of -use, but now they say to Council that they do not want that, they want R-P. You have turned them down twice on. R-P, and the Commission has done so three times. How many times do we have to come here? 'We do not want R-P. R-2, maybe, but they do not want R-2. They have stated they can't profitably use R-8 but what they want to make is a "fast buck". You know the area that is proposed R-P. You know wheat abilities it will give to immediately adjacent land. You know where the present buildings are is R-P and you know the land surrounding it. They had a sign on for the better part of a year and have not been able to sell it and now they say "we have people who want to occupy this particular space" they are asking for but they do not tell. you who they are. We are against anything bit R-1, there is review of this area as might be the best possible use be changed. IN REBUTTAL with no change until such time as It is to be made to determine what of this land and to say that it should Mrs. La Berge. I would explain to the opposition that we have the "For Sale" sign on the pro- perty next to the office because we thought we could sell part.of the R-P lot,, but found out we can't sell any part. We can't sell it unless they got off ices, and if they could, we would have sold it long ago. The City Clerk presented and read a letter in opposition from W. E. Van Alstein of 1,81.5 Eckerman Avenue, and a latter from the Ashby Com- pany, per Howard E. Ashby,, indicating this land is more suitable for business and indicating an inability to get a loan for residential purposes; letter from Bissell, and Duquette, architects, indicating that in design analysis of this property It doesn't Justify apartment house use under City ordinances; and a letter from the Kit Construc- tion Company, per Richard Carson;, Vice -President, indicating it is not possible, investment -wise, to place apartments on this property due to City ordinance restrictions. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Mayor Heath. Isn't this highly irregular for some- one to request a zoning such as this? We have a piece of property that the City Isn't initiating rezoning on, and has no interest in rezoning it, unless it is rezoned to the betterment of the City, and someone wants to develop it and comes in and says to ths, City that we would like you to rezone it, rezoning it 'to anything you want, to the highest classi- fication. Is this irregular or does it happen quite often? Mr. Williams. It doesn't happen often, but I do not think it is highly irregular. It is proper, but not commonly donee A person may ask for a specific zone or come in and say that they do not think this land is reasonably useable :for, the zoning applied to it and they want you to consider putting it in a zone you want it in, It would seem to me that the only thing agreed upon by the Commission and Council is that R-1 is, evidently, not the right zoning. 0 Co C. 8-8-60 Page Fourteen ZONE CHANGE NO, 166 - continued Mayor Heath: I thought the problem laid with the owners to get approval for it. Mr. Williams: However, it is the responsibility of the City to have all property in -the City that is reasonably and economically feasible. Mayor Heath: There was a comment made on deed restric- tions. Does a zoning take precedent over deed restrictions? Mr. Williams: We have two separate things operating independently. Deed restrictions can't dictate zoning but it may bind the owners. Mayor Heath: What happens where the deed restriction says you cannot have R-P on this parti- cular piece of property and then an applicant comes in and gets R-P? Where does it go from there? If there is a lawsuit can this zone change be nullified? Mr, Williams: The zoning can't be nullified, but whether applicant can build a professional office on the property if deed restrictions would prevent it, is a private matter to be determined in civil liti- gation. Councilman Towner: This is one of the most puzzling areas in the City that we have had. We have considered every type of zoning on the property to adequately protect the homes and yet not prevent any use whatsoever of the property. I am not quite sure from the map which is Lot 32 and which are Lots 17 and 18. (Mr. Joseph pointed these out to Councilman Towner) Evidently, then, Lot 32 was suggested for the R-2 use by the Planning Commission. (The request to enumerate the uses in R-2 were read by Mr. Joseph). For this size lot they would get two dwellings then? Mr, Joseph: Yes, that is corrects That would be the minimum, plus two required off-street parking spaces, plus required setbacks. Mayor Heath: It was pointed out as to why this pro- perty was not adaptable to R-3o Was the Commission aware of these facts? Were they pointed out? Mr, La Berge: I do not believe it was outlined as clearly. We didn't do so because we didn't think we would even get R-3o Councilman Snyder: If you get the "throughway" here would you still want R-P? Mr. La Berge: Yes, we would, but the throughway is only conjecture C,quncilman Brown: Some four years ago when Azusa was rezoned, although it is not in the Ordinance, it was agreed that everything from Workman to Puente, in the way of business other than service stations, would have a 25 foot setback. On the northeast corner of Workman Avenue all buildings, other than the gas station, are set back more than 25 feet, such as Danny's Restaurant behind the gas . ,., �.. • 6 C o C o v- V -6 0 ZONE CHANGE NO, 166 - continued Page Fifteen station. On the other side of the street all buildings are set back more than 25 feet. It was done by the action of Council,, a-- policy that was set up, and as pointed out we tried to'hold eery - thing back, The Golf Course sets back to 25 feet, Everything in that particular area was held back. The Precise Plan for'the south- east corner of Rowland and Azusa calls for.25 feet back or further, Councilman Snyder: How come apartments were not set back? Councilman Brown: That one slipped through because zoning was given and then a precise plan was approved and it didn't come before Council. Mayor Heath: What was the reason for setting this back? Councilman Brown: To allow through traffic to go through and no parking at curb to interfere with business, and in anticipation of the widening of Azusa. You will notice where the little shopping centers are, they do not have the congestion which the apartments do which come right out to Azusa. Councilman Snyder: It is more than conjecture that this will be a throughway. Councilman Brown: It is on the master plan and has been for some time that this will be an Army Freeway. Mayor Heath: This is a problem piece of property and there have been many discussions on it. I would possibly suggest that we hold it over and study it,and secondly refer it back to the Commission with notification of these points that were brought out. If they are ad- vised of these facts they might change their minds. Councilman Brown: I am not in favor of a zone change with- out a precise plan coming through at the same time, Mr. La Berge: Actually, we have one but it is being held relative to this zoning matter pend- ing before you to save us a fee. Mayor Heath: It would seem there should be a precise plan on this when it comes through. Councilman Browne Especially with these houses to be taken into consideration. Councilman Snyder: What points brought out where you referring to? Mayor Heath: One, that if you put R-3 on those two adjacent lots and hold restriction of 100 feet setback he would be limited to one-story, Councilman Brown: It wouldn't be economical to develop it. Councilman Snyder: In view of the policy to hold to 25 foot setbacks here, in my opinion I would go with the Commission recommendation and I feel I would be ready to act upon this tonight. On the north it is Co Co 8-8-60 ZONE CHANGE NO, 166 - continued Councilman Snyder - continued: Page Sixteen still R-1 and south is still R-10 I, myself, do not feel the need to hold this over and I think we have all the information needed. • Councilman Towner: We have a dual problem here. Ordinarily I start off on the premise that the Commission's action should be approved unless there is strong reason for doing otherwise. I know that the Commission has reviewed this property and considered it as much as the Council has, but I can't quite reconcile myself here. I think we can protect the property owners and perhaps go back where we started from, on R-P, with a suitable plan that will protect the property owners. We have gone into every plan, and to be honest from the Planning stand- point it appears to me that R-P is the most reasonable thing to do with its The only other course might be to hold it for consultants study and see how it fits in with the over-all plan of the City when some other suggestions might be made. Councilman Snyder: It looks like R-P might be best, but when you bring up the matter of the 25 foot setbacks -- to the south it is held to that and all the way along you have held to that -- and this is going to be a throughway and that should be taken into considerations Councilman Brown: Yes, but on Pioneer there are houses in- volved which are built right out to the street so that 25 feet in this particu- lar section has been broken. I brought it up for a trend of thought so there would be no large buildings. We wouldn't be giving the applicant a thing with R-3 and taxes would then go higher and it just isn't feasible to develop R-3 under our Ordinance. Councilman Snyder: Let it remain R-1a Mayor Heath: I still feel there may be points here that the Commission was not aware of and they should have the opportunity to review these facts and look at it again, Councilman Brown: I would be inclined to look at the R-P very favorably, with a proper Precise Plan, so that good protection can be supplied to the homeonwers in this particular case. Councilman Towner: I feel the Planning Commission was planning this off the cuff to meet the problem with the least density of zonings However, I would do something other than R-1 and take.a different approach in that instead of meeting it by zoning meet it with a precise plan and protect the homeowners by a precise plane They had one in once but it was disapproved because the zoning was disapproved. The Precise Plan referred to was presented to Council and Councilman Brown questioned as to whether such a plan, not officially presented, could be considered. Mr. Williams stated that he thought it could C, C,, 8-8-60 Page Seventeen ZONE CHANGE NO. 166 - continued Councilman Towner - continued: because Council sees a precise plan to view whether or not -a plan is feasible. However, they would have to come in, before they build, to get a precise plan approved, so the only thing concerned with isn't approving a precise plan to become binding but demonstrating the capa- bility of having a reasonable precise plan placed upon it. Mr, La Berge: This is the same precise plan previously presented. Councilman Brown: However, this isn't before us in my opinion. There is also another matter on which I would like to speak and that is that tonight there has been reference made to the recommendations of Mr. Joseph. Mr. Joseph acts as advisor to the Planning Commission and recommends nothing and I feel this referral to'Mr. Joseph as "recommending" is putting him on a spot entirely too much. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Mayor Heath, that Zone Change No. 166 be referred back to the Planning Commission and investigated for the possibility. of R-P use with a Precise Plan, Councilman Towner: If you take the R-2 changes I doubt very much that can be done with the pro- perty. It is not a use type zoning any- more, nobody builds these duplexes, and if you go to R-3 then you have the problem of high density and crowding and there is less pro- perty to protect the homeowners. I do not believe it can be held to R-1 because it is unuseable because of the expressway and other development already in the area, and frankly it just brings us back to R-Po We have considered everything in the book, unless it goes to "C" and we do not want to do that. Councilman Brown: The motion is to try for good protection of the homeowners with reasonable zoning and precise plan. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Mayor Heath Noes: Councilman Snyder Absent: Councilman Barnes Mayor Heath called a recess. Council reconvened at 9:40 P. M. DISTRICT A'11-58-3 Sanitary Sewer District Changes in proposed work change the work proposed to regular meeting of July 25, Hearing of protests or objections to changing the work proposed to be done in the Baymar Street and Norma Avenue.Sewer District. Set for hearing on this date by Resolution of Intention No. 1902 Quo be done passed by the City Council at their 1960. Mayor Heath: This is the time and place fok the hearing of protests or objections to changing the proposed work to be done in the Baymar Street and Norma Avenue Sewer District. Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavits of publication relative to this hearing? 0 C. C. 8-8-60 Page Eighteen DISTRICT A111-58-3 - continued City Clerk Flotten: We have the affidavits of publication. Mayor Heath: I will entertain a motion that these affidavits be received and filed. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner and carried, that the affidavits of publication be received and filed. Mayor Heath: Would a description of the proposed change please be stated. Mr. Dosh: It is the reversing of grades of the sewer from Walnut Creek Parkway to Azusa Avenue. The matter was discussed at the mast meeting of the City Council. Mayor Heath: Have there been any written protests received? City Clerk Flottena There have been no written or oral protests received. Mayor Heath: Is there anyone present in the audience who desires to speak on this matter? Since there have been no written or oral protests, nor anyone in the audience desiring to speak on this matter, I will declare the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 1909 The City Clerk presented: Ordering certain modifica- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE tions of work to be done CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING CERTAIN A111-58-3 MODIFICATIONS OF WORK TO BE DONE IN ADOPTED ASSESSMENT :DISTRICT' AND OTHER STREETS" Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes Said Resolution was given No, 1909 RESOLUTION NO, 1910 Ordering work to be done A°11-58-3 ADOPTED Mayor Heath: The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST:"COVINA ORDERING WORK TO BE DONE ON BAYMAR STREET AND OTHER STREETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 1839 AS MODIFIED" (A°11-58-3) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. C. C. 8-8-6o Page Nineteen RESOLUTION NO. 1910 - continued Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilman Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None iAbsent: Councilman Barnes Said Resolution was.given No. 1910. PLANNING COMMISSION METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION NO. 135-171 Mrs.*Gertrude Milliken HELD OVER. AT THE REQUEST OF, THE APPLICANT LOCATION: On the north side of Lark Hill Drive, southeast of Spring Meadow: Drive. 1.76 Acres - 2 Lots - Area District II2. Approval recommended by the Planning Commission on August 3, 196o. The City Clerk presented and read a communication from Mrs. Gertrude Milliken requesting this matter`be-he,ld in abeyance until the Council meeting of August 22, 1960. - Mayor Heath: The Plahning Commission has placed restrictions on this lot split to the extent, I have been led to believe, of $600o.00. The owner feels. that this is excessive and the lot split wouldn't support the expense. Therefore, they are getting information together that they would like to present to us to explain their reasoning that this lot split couldn't be done with these re- strictions placed upon'it. Councilman This is on a street that is not on a center line and up Brown: on a hillside which would take a fill. -There are a lot of problems and it is the only lot in the whole'tract that would.have curb. There are other problems,.too before it is split, it must go'through an architectural committee to approve this and it isn't approved, so they want that and what is covered. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-171 be held over to the meeting of August 22, 1960, at the request of'the applicant. - PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 34 and PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 40 City ,.Initiated CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAW UP ORDINANCE IN . 'LINE WITH,,. PLANNING COMMISSION:,. RECOMMENDATIONS AS MOST RECENTLY MADE A Proposal to amend the West Covina Municipal Code affecting regulations in the R=P Zones pertaining to height of buildings, and a Proposal to modify certain regulations per- taining to height limitation of buildings in Zone R-A and R-30 Planning Commission recommended approval of both of these proposed amendments under their resolutions No. 820 and No. 906, with a report from the, planning Commission. The City Clerk presented and read the recommendations,.in that after the review of the two amendments by the Planning Commission it was the recommendation to'the City Council that.the, intent was to include R-1 and R-A to protect single family from infringement from multiple dwelling structure(s).' Discussion was given to Councilman Towner's suggestion that R-A zones otherwise potential property be a part of this requirement. It was felt that .the Council and Commission desired to eliminate "potential", as the use of this could be misleading to' developers and citizens throughout the community, If any are to be granted it could be by variance. The two amendments,:were recommended c. c. 8-8-6o Page Twenty PROPOSED AMENDMENTS NO. 34 and 4o - Continued as originally suggested, that wherever R-A or R-1 existed, for pro- tection, the other zone should be included. Councilman I believe the thoughts of the Commission were well taken Towner, and 'the thought is to protect; property used for single family homes so no two-story adjacent to it, but you do have the complication on potential zoning and that is better, given by variance rather than by this wording in the ordinance. Mayor Heath.- As I understand this now, if the property adjacent is R-A the height limitations are drawn as if that is R-1? Councilman That is correct. Towner: Councilman No more two-story homes. Brown. Mayor. Heath: Adjacent;to R-A? Councilman Adjacent to R-1, they couldn't have two-story. Brown, Mayor Heath, Suppose the zoning -has to do with the zoning next to R-A if you permit two-story next to R-A it immediately elim- inates that R-A from developing R-1. Councilman Not necessarily, it can be zoned and used for R-1 and Towner.- already has two-story overlooking it but I would say it is a problem of a variance, whether first considering whether to go one or two-story on it. Councilman East Barbara Avenue has lots backing to the north of the Brown, lots facing Barbara and those lots built two-story which means no more two-story in the City if built next to presently zoned R-1 property, Mr. Joseph, This question was asked at the Commission meeting and brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that at the present time there is a height restriction in R'l. Mayor Heath, We have two lots adjacent to one another. Both are zoned R-A. The owner of one lot requests an R-3 zone. You do not know, at this time, what the adjacent lot will develop into; therefore, if we permit two-story throughout the entire R-3 area we are then, practically, eliminating the possibility of putting,R-1 on_the second parcel unless you figure the R-1 can be developed ad- jacent to the two-story R-3, which we are trying to avoid. Councilman Then you are arguing in favor of the proposed amendments. Towner, If you have adjoining R-A parcels and one comes in with R-3 it is limited to one-story to adjoining parcel of R-A if „you approve this amendment. The Planning Commission suggested we eliminate "not potentially zoned; for other than R-1 use" which was my initial suggestion. If you have an R-A parcel adjacent to R-A potential "C" parcel you.may wonder why on the R-A parcel a man couldn't • go to two-story. The thought was to hold to one-story on proposed amendments and let.him ask for a variance, and I think it is a reason- able suggestion. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that the City Attorney be instructed to draw up an ordinance in line with the most recent recommendations of the Planning Commission relative to Proposed City Initiated Amendment No. 34 and Proposed City Initiated Amendment,No. 40.. c. c. 8-8-6o Page Twenty -One RECREATION AND PARKS MEMORANDUM DATED JULY 29, 1960 Showing a list of recreation and park needs, the estimated costs, which should be considered for a possible bond issue. • The City Clerk stated that at an adjourned session of the Recreation and Parks Commission of August 4 two motions were made, and carried, one being that the final figure for the bond issue be in the amount of $1,250,000.00 and that authorization be given by the Council to forma citizens committee to promote the bond issue, with the names to be submitted to the City Council for approval. Councilman On July 28 three categories of improvements and Towner: estimated costs were given and I would now under- stand, the only amendment to the action of July 28 was to eliminate category 4, the civic auditorium? Mr. Busching: That is correct. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder that the City Clerk be instructed to place on the November election ballot the bond issue in the amount of $1,250,000.00 for improvements in City parks. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that authorization be given to the Recreation and Parks Commission to form a citizens committee to promote the bond issue, with the names to be submitted to the City Council for approval. Mrs. Van Dame: On this bond issue.... When you proposed one sev- eral years ago for swimming pools it wasn't presented correctly and it didn't go over.. Don't you have to itemize everything? Mayor Heath: No, it is a general obligation bond issue and is being given to the Recreation and Parks Commission which we feel will look into every facet of this so that it will go through. Councilman There are three swimming pools, only it just says Brown: "pools" and is eliminating the civic auditorium. REPLACEMENT OF It was indicated that a petition had been TREES ON FIRCROFT received by the Recreation and Parks BETWEEN VINE AVE. Commission relative to the replacement AND ALASKA STREET of existing trees, which are Magnolias, to some faster growing tree to be taken from the approved list of trees of the City of West Covina. This is the first request involving a large number of property owners and it was felt that residents should have their choice of trees wherever possible, so long as they select them from the approved tree list. There were 12 people petitioning this matter, which is 7005% of those in the area and there was a possibility three more homes would participate in this change. The recommendation of the Commission was for approval with the stip- ulations that no existing parkway trees be removed until all 12 of the people petitioning have acquired trees and approved by the Recreation and Parks Department; that they be uniform size no smaller in size than the largest tree to be removed; there be no cost to the City in o. C. 8-8-6o Page Twenty -Two REPLACEMENT OF TREES ON FIRCROFT - Continued in removal or replacement of the trees, not including transporting and transplanting by the City of the removed Magnolias. Mayor Heath: This has been done before north of the freeway, and was worked out satisfactorily. The people feel it would improve the street if they had faster growing trees. The present trees are very slow growers and in various discus- sions with nurseries it has been indicated this type of soil is not con- ducive to the Magnolia treees growth, Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the petition be approved, subject to the conditions of the Recreation and Parks Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS CONTINUED PROPOSED ADDITION TO To include those tiers of lots SOUTHWESTERLY ANNEXATION NO. 166 extending along the south side of APPROVED Barrydale Avenue between Orange Avenue and Willow Avenue. The report of the Commission was read which, in essence, indicated that the additional tier of lots be added to the annexation as it would be no additional expense added to the City to maintain this property; it would give more uniformity to the annexation and would help carry the cost of the balance of the annexation. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that those lots extending along the south side of Barrydale Avenue be included in the Southwesterly Annexation No. 166. RESOLUTION NO. 1911 Consenting to the commencement of proceedings for annexation (No. 166) ADOPTED The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONSENTING TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS WEST COVINA SOUTHWESTERLY ANNEXATION DISTRICT NOa 166.11 Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes Said Resolution was given Noo 1911� SAFEWAY WALL Planning Commission recommendations accepted. Councilman Are there any houses that back to the wall? Brown: Mr. Joseph: They front on the wall from the other side of Yaleton Avenue. Councilman The sidewalk on Yaleton, is the wall 6-feet Brown: from sidewalk level up? Mr. Joseph: That is correct. c. c. 8-8-6o Page Twenty-three SAFEWAY WALL - continued Councilman I cant see how we can go any higher with it. Brown: Mayor Heath: Were there written objections to this? • Mr. Joseph: It was presented at the Commission meeting and those in objection were quite vocal about it and a recommendation has been made from the Commission to the Council. Councilman Because it was graded two feet inside the wall it Snyder: fails to meet the intent of what the wall was built for. It was four feet up from where it was graded, four feet from sidewalk, and the intent of the wall was to protect the property owners and this doesn't meet the intent. Councilman I believe the developers are well aware of the Towner: wall's intent and its purpose was very clear right from the beginning, which was to protect adjacent property owners with a high -wall. Councilman No wall over 6-feet high from the sidewalk is Brown: my interpretation. Councilman It is true we do not like 10-foot walls but it is Towner: better to build the wall up than to re -grade the parking lot down two feet lower, which would be the only other answer to meet the intent. Councilman My understanding was that the property owners Snyder: reviewing the precise plan weren't aware it was to be graded two feet up. I understand the store sits up on a two foot grade. Mr. Joseph: They graded approximately two feet on the inside of wall. Mr. Williams: This is a case where there is an affirmative require- ment. You have a case of a wall not to exceed 6-feet, This one says the wall shall be at least 6-feet. To be at least 6-feet it must be 6-feet from the shallowest side, "not exceed" is not exceed 6-feet on the greatest side. So it is from the side you are interpreting where you measure. Councilman I wonder if we can possibly offer an alternative of Towner: landcape planting. It might be more beneficial in any event. Mr.. Williams: You might raise the wall simply by putting some of -this plastic liner on top. If you say "wall at least 6-feet" you measure from any place where least, if' you say "not exceed 6-feet" then you measure from the deepest place. Mr. Joseph: It was install 6-foot masonry wall along property. *Mr. Williams: It is an affirmative requirement. Mr. Joseph: We have a letter from the Safeway Company builder that if any further construction is required he will do it willingly.. C. C. 8-8-6o Page Twenty-four SAFEWAY WALL - continued Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the recommendations of the Planning Commission relative to the Safeway Wall be accepted. Councilman I'notice they have a wall that has jogs in it, -- Towner: 18-inch cuts, It may be there would be prefer- ence for the alternative of planting -in those areas. It would be more attractive and accomplish screening. City Manager Aiassa: Councilman Snyder, City Manager Aiassa: REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The main stretch would still be void. How long would that take to grow to be of any use to the property owners? There would also be the maintenance problem. Report on San Bernardino Avenue zoning study. City Manager This was at the request of Council at their last Aiassa: meeting. City Clerk The Planning Commission requests there be held Flotten-, in abeyance any zoning matters pending before the Council on any matter on San Bernardino Road until a complete report can be presented to Council at their August 22, 1960 meeting. Councilman If you drive from the west end on San Bernardino Snyder: Road in front of Picks and come to the Food Giant we have the situation of that market being in the County and having signs not in accord with the City of West Covina Sign Ordinance. Their signs are out on the street but the people who have property in West Covina must remove their signs and there is an unequal use of signs along San Bernardino Road. I think this is also a matter which might be jointly studied with other Cities and County, as well as other problems along there and that it be done as soon as possible. Nothing may be accomplished but at least it should be tried. Councilman I understood that these findings would be pre - Towner: sented to the Commission at their meeting of the 17th. Councilman They are just considering zoning and not signs, but Snyder: to make it uniform not only zoning should be con- sidered but if you are going to try to make the business properties equal there should be consid- eration of signs also. Councilman The Commission is in the process of restudying Brown: our sign ordinance and we might say certain signs are permissible but to be compatible with another City may break down our whole sign ordinance and to study this on a given street may be a drawn out affair. Councilman It may be, but I think it is worthwhile. Snyder: Councilman Pertaining to signs it might -be true, but property Brown-. should not be held back with the study of signs. C. C. 8-8-6o Page Twenty-five REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - Continued Councilman._. I didn't infer to hold it back for the study of Snyder: signs but I think it is something that should be studied and complete with a report. Councilman I would be in favor of studying these matters in Towner: conjunction with other cities. So far as signs I would agree with the problem as it has been pointed out and it needs coordinated study. I think for our immediate purposes we have before us the property of Mr. Pick and I think, there, what we want to do before the final reading of the ordinance is to be sure we have all the facts in front of us and we can hold it up for a brief time for this study. Mayor Heath: I understand there was a joint meeting held Thursday and a lot of miscellaneous notes came. out of it. What was the gist of it? Is there anything we can get hold of relative to it? City Manager The recommendation was that this matter be held Aiassa: pending complete presentation to the Commission on the 17th. Councilman I do not see how you can get this information Towner: when the Commission is going to present a full report to us. Councilman My purpose wasn't only a study but cooperation Snyder: between parties on the overall planning on this street. Mayor Heath: I am wondering if these governmental bodies.are so far apart? City Manager I wouldn't say that, but you requested the Aiassa: Commission to give you a full report on this matter. Mayor Heath: I am wondering if there is the possibility of listening to the County and Covina on how to develop the property and we will develop it accordingly. Councilman We may be the leaders and not the followers. Snyder: Councilman We may not do any following and may end up_with Towner: Pick's property as previously initiated as to zoning. Councilman I am just saying that if there is cooperation Snyder: there will probably be less "hodge-podge". Mayor Heath: So long as we're not zoning to the County and Covina. Councilman I didn't suggest that and I didn't suggest we Snyder: just sit back, but possibly cooperate here to get a better plan. Mayor Heath: We should tell them more how to develop than they tell us. Councilman It's not a case of telling anyone but how to Towner: get the best development out of all of the property. Co 8-8-60 -six C. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - Continued Councilman Just drive down San Bernardino Road and you can Snyder- tell what City you're in by the signs, develop- ment, etc. City Manager Don't forget you have an area of "no-man's land" 9 Aiassa- in this location that someone is going to annex and with Badillo Street cutting through will establish this area of major importance. Councilman It is my understanding that the Commission has Towner- requested Council to delay the finalizing of the action on the Pick property until there has been a reasonable study presented and I think it is a reasonable request and we can wait until August 22 for the final action. Mayor Heath- Was it the feeling there would be definite answers by the 22nd? Mr. Joseph- Yes. City Manager That is their schedule. Aiassa- Councilman Covina saw fit to give their area M-1/1/2 and I Brown- can see no lesser zone in the City adjacent to Covina. Councilman We should consider uniformity of signs and other Snyder- matters but this should not delay the other report now pending. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the Planning Commission be directed to proceed with their report on San Bernardino Road zoning, including consideration of land use, street width and signs and other matters, and their report be delivered to the City Council at their meeting of August 22, 1960 insofar as prepared at that time. Councilman' This was in front of the Planning Commission for Brown- four months and there was a directive to the Planning Department to get this study made, although I would not necessarily blame Mr. Joseph because it was taken out of his hands and then maybe he thought it was not his job to continue further, but I can't see holding this over. Councilman Brown voted "No" on the motion. GENERAL MATTERS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATION FROM*HACKLER, Request to Council to allow applicant's FLAUM AND ANSELL representatives and Mr. C. Hackler to present further evidence regarding Zone Change No. 162 (M. Pick). Mayor Heath- The hearing on this matter was closed and if it is re -opened to one person it must be re -opened to other persons and then it has to be re -advertised. I think we should give some kind of answer as to whether we shall open the case or not. Councilman Legally this possibly should not be Towner- re -opened but if they have further information that they can deliver to the Planning Department that might be included in the overall study of c. c. 8-8-60 Page Twenty-seven WRITTEN'COMMUNICATIONS - Continued Councilman San Bernardino Road, perhaps they might do so. Towner (Cont'd) Councilman Not in reference to the Pick case but on the Brown- general overall zoning of San Bernardino Road. • Councilman I think that Mr. Hackler should be advised that Towner- we cannot legally re -open the hearing at this time without re -advertising but that if he has inform- ation relative to the general zoning along San Bernardino Road which it was felt might be helpful he can present it to the Planning Department. Mayor Heath requested that the City Clerk inform Mr. Hackler relative to the discussion. REQUEST OF WEST To solicit merchants for gifts to be COVINA CIVITAN CLUB given away at Old Fashion Ice Cream REFERRED To Festival on September 11 at Covina Park. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Councilman Brown stated he had no objection but wondered as to why they are having this at the Covina Park. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that this matter be referred to the Secretary -Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, for report back to Council, as to their feelings in this request for solicitation. CITY MANAGER REPORTS URBAN PLANNING ASSISTANCE City Manager Aiassa stated this is $12,500.00 coming from the Federal Government and a letter has been received from the Department of Finance that this has been approved for the City subject contracts being approved, etc. AGREEMENT NO. 1082 This is a contract for $600.00 to correct Vincent Avenue Storm Drain a drain in front of the new Vincent DIRECTIVE TO SIGN Avenue School and the State is partici- pating in that project which we are doing with schools. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the Mayor and the City Clerk be directed to sign the agreement. LARK ELLEN BRIDGE County participation. It was indicated that we have to pick up another $33,500600 but that the Lark Ellen Bridge is definitely approved as a replacement, with two more to go, but this reduces cost about 43 or 46 thousand dollars. The staff has been advised to continue with the matter relative to the bridges on Hollenbeck and Azusa. PALM VIEW PARK EASEMENTS Relocation of existing Edison Company AUTHORIZATION7TO SIGN easement. .AS STIPULATED It was indicated that after the realign- ment of Palm View Park by the additional land acquired that there had to be a relocation of existing utility poles. Mr. Dosh and Mr. Ging- rich have been working on this matter. It is at the easterly end of Palm View Park, and the one stipulation is that there be no expense c. 00 8-8-6o Page Twenty-eight PALM VIEW PARK EASEMENTS - Continued to the City on relocating these poles. It is the shifting of the pole lines over towards private property that we abut. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that authorization be given to sign this agreement on the condition that no expense shall be incurred by the City on the relo- cation of these poles. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENTS The recommendation was for the increasing WITH HAROLD L. JOHNSON, of rates to $20.50 per hour for a three TED M. WALSH AND ADAMS man party of field men and to $8.00 for AND ELLS office rates. APPROVED Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the City Manager be authorized to draw up amended agreements, as indicated, with Harold L. Johnson, Ted M. Walsh and Adams and Ells. AUTHORIZATION TO CHECK SALES TAX RECORDS IN SACRAMENTO APPROVED Motion passed on roll call Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes RESOLUTION NO. 1912 INQUIRY OF STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Re. City Sales Tax ADOPTED Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that the City Manager, Mr. Aiassa, and Mr. McCann be authorized to check sales tax records in Sacramento with the expenditure not to exceed $500.00. as follows-. Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath" The City Manager presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA) REQUESTING THAT CITY MANAGER, GEORGE AIASSA, AND/OR OTHERS, BE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE INQUIRIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AT 'SACRAMENTO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REGARDING CITY SALES TAX." Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution shall be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: Councilman Barnes Said resolution was given No. 1912. REFUNDS ON STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENTS APPROVED To: Carmen K. Carriker $18.43 3209 E. Cortez West.Covina John H. Hiatt $18.43 322 S. Campana Flores West Covina . Harry J. Kopec $66.36 631 Inman Road West Covina c. c. 8-8-6o Page Twenty-nine REFUNDS ON STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENTS - Continued Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that.the Director of Finance shall be authorized to make refunds to property owners for street lighting assessments erroneously placed on the assessment rolls. Motion passed on roll call as follows-. Ayes-. Councilmen Brown, Noes-. None Absent-. Councilman Barnes ENLARGEMENT OF CITRUS COURT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the plans be accepted and that they meet City Council approval. ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN PREMISES (Pick) (Second reading and adoption) HELD OVER ORDINANCE NO. 671 The City Attorney presented-. Correcting typographical "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE errors in West Covina CITY OF WEST COVINA CORRECTING TYPO - Municipal Code GRAPHICAL ERRORS RELATING TO WEST COVINA ADOPTED MUNICIPAL CODE AFFECTING ZONING." Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, that further reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that the ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows-. Ayes-. Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes-. None Absent-. Councilman Barnes Said Ordinance was given No. 671. ORDINANCE NO. 672 Amending zoning provisions of code relating.to permitted uses in C-1 Zone ADOPTED The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING CERTAIN OF THE ZONING PROVISIONS OF THE CODE RELATING TO USES PERMITTED IN C-1 ZONE AND TO PRIVATE CLUBS, FRATERNITIES, SORORITIES, AND LODGES. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and,carried, ,that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, that the ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows-. Ayes-. Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes-. None Absent-. Councilman Barnes Said ordinance was given No. 672. c. c. 8-8-6o Page Thirty ORDINANCE NO. 673 Changing Area District of certain premises ADOPTED The City Attorney presented-. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CHANGING AREA DISTRICT OF CERTAIN PREMISES - ANNEX- ATION NO. 161 and 163." Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, • that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that the ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows-. Ayes-. Councilmen Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes-. Councilman Brown Absents- Councilman Barnes Said ordinance was given No. 673. DISCUSSION RELATIVE Mr. P. Egly-. TO PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 233 (W & T Construction Co.) You have three R-3 zones in the City; the R-3b . We feel there is a problem of equity here. Whether you are treating this piece of property as others have been treated on this street. old R-3, the R-3a and the Under the R-3a and the R-3b you have the restriction of the 100-feet within R-1 property which wasn't changed relative to the R-3 and this portion is part of the old R-3 ordinance, consequently you have asked for this restriction under the old R-3 as a requirement prior to getting the building permit. A precise plan was submitted on this prop- erty which met all the requirements of the precise plan ordinance and it was approved by the Planning Commission save for the particular item of limitation of height. My argument is that there are certain things you can change with a precise plan and certain things you cannot, but if you are changing the height you are changing a substantial property right and depriving the R-3 owners of something they are entitled to and I feel I have authority to back me up on this in not only equities on the side of the applicant, but on the side of law. Had you passed an ordinance prior to this that R-3 shall not exceed one story 100-feet within R-1 property.... but you didn't say that, what you said was this could build two-story apartment house. This is not coming in under R-3a or R-3b, this is straight R-3. It is not a variance zoning to be treated as same, it is what is already and that is straight R-3. The policy to which this applies is a policy applying to property after this was established, but this property was zoned long before this policy was applied by the City, so when you come in with a Precise Plan you can control layout, exits, entrances, parking, but you cannot say we can't build more than one story and at this point Council has gone beyond the point of where they can do something with the precise plan, forgetting this wasn't a or b on R-3, but plain R-3 under the original basic ordinance. Mayor Heath-. R-3 had no stipulation to that effect? Mr. Joseph: That is what you passed tonight covering that loophole. Councilman The question is, as I see it, whether we can Towner-, control height with a precise plan on property zoned R-3 and which has no ordinance control over the height. In this particular case the property immediately adjoins single family.and I can see no difference between controlling height c. c. 8-8-6o Page Thirty-one DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 233 - Continued Councilman Towner - Continued and other layouts on the property. However, I can see a good legal question involved as to whether we can or cannot do it. Mr. Egly: Basically, we are offering a compromise on it which is, that apartment houses which are closest to R-1 are limited to height and that on the north side of the property line, some 90-feet away, it be permitted to have two-story. That which is over -looking and adjacent to R-1 shall be one-story and this is on the south side rather than those on the north. This is not to get into the question of a lawsuit, but it is felt that it is basically unfair relative to a right a property owner thought he had at the time of purchase three years ago and controlling what was wanted was given at the time of the precise plan. Mayor Heath.- When was original zoning given to this? Councilman About five years ago. Brown: Councilman So.far as Council is concerned, it is matter of Towner-. reaching a reasonable result which is substantially in accord with the planning and policy as expressed in our other ordinance regarding apartment houses and we can do that by permitting this to go to two-story that which is substantially removed from R-1 and restricting that part which is closer to R-1 to one-story. Mr. Williams: I do not agree with Mr. Egly that height is dif- ferent than any other thing that may be regulated by the precise plan. However, I think the Council is self-defeating if.it takes the position that it has an iron clad rule applying to precise plan. The reason it is regulated by precise plan is that it is impossible to set forth precise rules and if that isn't so' it should be in the ordinance. Immediately you say within 100- feet R-1 and R-a must be one-story, you defeat the precise plan because it says that. The building today isn't on uniform 50-foot lots as it used to be, You can't have a 5-foot uniform side yard to accomplish anything. To achieve a sense of uniformity you consider all factors involved and in that view impose height limit that will afford to neighbors the same protection and to me regular rules would be imposed in regular circumstances. But you say within 100-feet, one-story and to my mind you defeat the whole purpose of the precise plan. I do not agree to the reason given by Mr' Egly as to why, but do so on a different reason. On reciting minutes you always make it 100-feet and if you do, why have a precise plan? If upper story can't look down on R-1 patio or yard and you have one-story by R-1 and two-story with no direct vision in- to R-1 where is your police power? What are you doing it for, because you please to do it? Mayor Heath: We must draw the line somewhere. Mr. Williams: Draw it with rationality. You do not stipulate it and that is why you have a precise plan. Councilman I feel the rule could be broken for reasonable Snyder: reasons but I do not like to compromise for threat of a lawsuit, I do not like legal blackmail. c. c. 8-8-6o Page Thirty-two RESOLUTION NO. 1913 The City Attorney presented. - Approving Precise Plan "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE of Design No. 233 CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING PRECISE ADOPTED PLAN OF DESIGN N0. 233." (W & T Construction Co.) Mayor Heath.- Hearing -no objections, we will waive reading of isthe body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Brown that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes.- Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes. None Absent.- Councilman Barnes Said resolution was given No. 1913, RESOLUTION NO. 1914 The City Attorney presented.- Granting a sign variance "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Zoning Variance 314 THE CITY OF WEST COVINA GRANTING A U. S. Rubber Company SIGN VARIANCE.' (Eberling) ADOPTED LOCATION.- 2534 E. Workman Avenue. Mayor Heath.- Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes.- Councilmen Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes.- None Absent.- Councilman Barnes NOT VOTING -- Councilman Brown Councilman When I brought up the study on San Bernardino Road, Snyder.- I didn't bring it up with the idea of holding up Pick's ordinance tonight. There is no hardship on it, but I do not think the study will change the zoning or ordinance, although it would probably be no hardship to wait two weeks. Councilman We do not know until, after the study. What is the Towner.- point of having the study if we are going to act blindly on this? Councilman I had other property in mind when I voted against Snyder.- it in the beginning. The study should be done and I still think there is time to do a study on other property in zoning. Councilman I do not think this is fair after this was in for Brown.- four months. . Mr. Joseph.- There is some 1600 feet of frontage on San Bernardino Road and Mr. Pick's property takes up little less than half. Councilman If there is still time to consider this in con- Snyder.- junction with other governmental bodies then I will wait. C. Co 8-8-6o Page Thirty-three Mayor Heath-. I think it could be acted upon, I do not think the man should wait this long. There is commercial in the area so is commercial wrong here? Councilman We were going to study it, but it seems regardless Towner-. of the study all that is being considered is that Pick gets his requested zoning because he might • lose a little more money in two weeks. Mayor Heath: At the last meeting an applicant stated that she needed something because of economic necessity and we went ahead to the extent of having a resolution written up by the City Attorney by hand and read at the meeting. Councilman We have no reason to give anything than this Brown-. because this was up four months ago. I never saw so much pressure as on this one. Councilman The pressure was brought in favor of Mr. Pick and Towner: I never saw anything go through so fast. This isn't anything discriminatory against Pick, this is the performing of a duty as a Councilman. Mayor Heath: You do an injustice to the man by making him wait. This has been before us for quite some time. If this study was under consideration before Pick applied, I would say 100% let him wait until the study was done, but he made an application and after that it was decided to study the property and we hold him up; we do not know for how long. Councilman For four months. Brown: Mayor Heath: That I do not know but the study was after the application, Councilman He originally made application in April. Brown: Councilman Yes, but the City Council wouldn't direct an Snyder: intensive study of this. Councilman. There shouldn't have to be a directive. Brown-. Mayor Heath: We didn't ask for a study until after he applied. Councilman Until after the first ordinance reading. Brown: Councilman It was a simple question of acting with all the Towner-. facts or just pushing it through without all the facts. Councilman I will put the matter off. Snyder-. c. c. 8-8-6o SALARY RAISES RELATIVE TO "Y" RATING from their "Y" rating and salary ranges. Page Thirty-four Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that Mr. Robert F'lotten, Mr. Glenn Garner, and Mr. Lawrence McMillan shall be eliminated they shall be placed on the "E" step of their • Motion passed on roll call as follows. Ayes. Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes. None Absent: Councilman Barnes Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that Mr. T. J. Stanford shall stay on his "Y" rating at his present salary of $721.00 a month. Motion passed on roll call as follows. ..Ayes. Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes. None Absent. Councilman Barnes City Attorney's vacation from August 19, 1960 to September 12, 1960. CITY CLERK ZONING CASE 3998-(1) Corrected notice of public hearing from Regional Planning Commission Regional Planning Commission regarding Zoning Case No. 3998-(1) changing hearing date from August 2nd to August 23, 1960, and Notice of Public Hearing from Regional Planning Commission regarding Zoning Case No. 3999-(1). REQUEST TO SOLICIT Southern California Diabetic Association. APPROVED January 22, 23, and 24 of 1961. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that the request to solicit on the dates indicated be approved. GIRL SCOUTS REQUEST To sell Girl Scout Calendars. TO SELL CALENDARS APPROVED November and December of 1960. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the request of the Girl Scouts to sell calendars as indicated be approved. DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that Demands in the amount of $84,350.98, as shown on Demand Sheets C-215 and C-216 be approved. This is to include fund transfers in the amount of $51,o43009. Motion passed on roll call as follows. - Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes. None Absent. Councilman Barnes f c. c. 8-8-6o Page Thirty-five Councilman I would like to get the impressions of the City Towner, Council relative to the spending of expense money and it not appearing in detail on the Demand Sheet. I think it would be a good policy so long as we have approved expense accounts for Council that there be an accounting and public report on how much was spent by whom and what for. • Councilman Brown - It was suggested up to $25.00 but we didn't indicate a flat amount. Councilman I understood there was some procedure for Council Towner- submitting an expense statement and perhaps that it be made available to all of us to see where the City money is going and to what purpose. I have no specific conditions in mind, but ,just that it might be a good policy. Mayor Heath- If allowed up to $25-00 why itemize it. Councilman We have to itemize to collect it. Brown: City Manager It goes through City Manager to Finance Office. Aiassa: Councilman I would like to see City Council itself receive a Towner: report on expenditures and where funds are going and who is spending it. Mayor Heath- If we allow up to $25.00 and say this is permiss- ible that we spend this and make that amount available to be used, do you want an accounting of the expenses against each person's $25.00? City Manager Many Councils request a quarterly report. Aiassa- Councilman That would be adequate for my purpose. Some time Towner- at some point during the year Councilmen should make accounting to where he is spending his account money. Mayor Heath- What about formal action on this $25.00? Mr. Williams- It would only take a resolution or motion granting this blanket authorization. We have the concept that a Councilman has to be authorized to attend meetings say of the League or other such matters and this can be a blanket authorization in advance. But then you could have authorization to attend anything in connection with your responsibility as City Council at City expense not exceeding $25.00 a month, as a rule of a special nature. Before reimbursement you would hand in an expense account, the only thing..... Councilman If you wanted to adopt an expense account you could Brown- put use of car down for going out and looking at areas involving cases. At the present time you can't because there is no authorization to do so. Mayor Heath- I would like to see this $25.00 blanket amount given and keep it on the records for the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Councilman Towner: Can we see a sample of the resolution? Mr. Williams: You can also have an affidavit signed for each month. I will prepare a resolution and affidavit. C. C. 8-8-60 Page Thirty-six COMMENTS OF MRS. VAN DAME When something comes up before Council that isn't passed, and then some Councilman is waylaid outside and then comes back and gets a change, that isn't good. I think that applies to the Pick case. He asked for a certain thing and it wasn't granted and he was out in the. hall and high pressured some of Council and then it was rushed back in here. Councilman I do not believe there was any of this on the Brown: Pick case. The only thing such as this might' 'have been in relation to the General Tire Company, but that was after some of the Council realized they didn't understand about the piece of property and then changed their vote. Mrs. Van Dame: I may be wrong, but I am still not satisfied with that answer, in my own mind. Someone asked that something should be settled administratively but I do not think that should be done. Anything settled should be settled by the full Council session and not administratively, because I do not think it is right, with all due respect to Mr. Aiassa and Mr. Joseph. They weren't hired for that. Mayor Heath: I do not think a firm amendment was to be reached but to get their heads together and see if there couldn't be some understanding of what is applied for and then come back here. I think that is what was meant. Mrs. Van Dame: I understand what you are saying, but it is not as I understood it. Can't you put something on the November ballot regarding an increase in salary for Council members? Mayor Heath: It can't be changed for the Council elected under a certain salary, it must remain at that salary for four years. Mr. Williams: The present law is that any authorized increase by the people is not paid to anyone in present office at the time the increase is voted in. STUDY SESSION Monday, August 15, 1960 at 7:30 P. M. Motion by,Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the meeting be adjourned at 12.15 A. M. APPROVED Ma yor ATTEST: City Clerk