08-22-1960 - Regular Meeting - MinutesV
•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 22, 1960
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Heath at 7:40 P.M. in the West
Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Towner,
with the invocation given by City Clerk Flottene
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Heath, Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder
Others Present: Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk
Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager
Mr. Dwight Newell - in absence of the City Attorney
Mr. Thomas bosh, Public Services Director.
Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Coordinator
Absent: Mr, Harry C. Williams, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 25, 1960 - Approved as submitted.
July 28, 1960 - Approved as submitted.
CANVASS OF BALLOTS - ANNEXATION NO. 165
Mayor Heath questioned the City Clerk as to whether ballots were ready
to be canvassed and the City Clerk indicated that they were and directed'
Councilmen Snyder and Barnes to act as Clerks relative to this matter.
Mayor Heath to act as inspector.
City Clerk Flottene Let the record show that there were two (2)
applications for absentee voters ballots which
have been duly signed and checked with the
Registration Affidavits in the Office of the Registrar of Voters in Los
Angeles. The envelopes have been received in good order and in accordance
to law, and this matter should be handled in the same manner as any other
election in that there is the opportunity of person(s) to challenge any
vote cast. ,
The applications for absentee ballots were from John He McKenzie and
Carolyn L. McKenzie. Let the record show that the two absentee ballots
were duly received, numbered 101 and 102, and the remainder of the 100
absentee ballots are legally cancelled. Both the absentee ballots show
a vote of 'Yes' and I now submit them to the Clerks for their inspection.
To proceed with the count of the original ballots, there were thirty-one
(31) votes for and nineteen (19) votes against and with the addition of
the votes of the two absentee ballots the total would now be thirty-three
votes (33) for and nineteen (19) against the Annexation.
• Mr. Newell: There has been a stay order g t#19de on the City,
showing cause which the Court has indicated
relative to further proceedings by Councilmen
and City Clerk towards completion of the annexation. However, there was
stricken from the original stay order the petition to stop the canvassing
of returns and the passage of the ordinance and resolution, and you may
introduce the ordinance declaring the results of the election so as not
to be in jeopardy relative to the election code under which this election
was called and so that the City will not have to go to the expense of a
new election. Nothing taken, by the introduction of this ordinance,
in my opinion, could be considered in variance to this stay order you have
C. C. 8-22-60
Page Two
because this is not completing the annexation in any way, shape or form,
but is only to protect the election procedure.
Mayor Heath: The second reading would have to be put off until
.
after September 21, in view of this stay order.
Mr. Newell: I can give you a better opinion next time. I
think for the purposes now you can introduce the
ordinance and after I have discussed this with
Mr. Sorenson we can then decide when this shall come up.for its second
reading. This is to protect you for the money expended so far. However,
possibly in view of the hearing date we would possibly not have a second
reading until after that hearing.
INTRODUCTION
An Ordinance approving Mr. Newell presented:
the annexation to the "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
City of West Covina OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE
(Annexation No. 165) ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA OF CERTAIN
INHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS 'WEST COVINA
EASTERLY ANNEXATION DISTRICT NO. 165' PURSUANT
TO A SPECIAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID TERRITORY ON
THE 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1960.11'
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried,
that reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried,
that the ordinance be introduced and given its first reading by title only.
City Clerk Flotten; There will be a longer delay relative to the
second reading because of this stay order?
Mr. Newell: Yes.
City Clerk Flotten: There is an incorporation meeting to come before
the Board of Supervisors on August 25 on an area
which includes this Annexation.
Mr. Newell- You are still stayed by the Court and this
would have to be taken off the calendar ....
the Court is restraining you.
Gity„Manager..„ Aiassa -. _,..,... .ad,,.reading?....
Mr. Newell: Five days. .
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVE-
MENTS
Tract No. 16457
(Olson Lumber Company)
APPROVED
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVE-
MENTS PROJECT NO. C-43
(.Cuda Construction
Company)
APPROVED
LOCATION- Northeast corner of Fairgrove and
.Sunset Avenues.
Accept street and sanitary sewer improvements
and authorize release of Glens Falls Insurance
Company Performance Bond No. 78-43 87 in the
amount of $147,170.00.
LOCATION: _ West side of Glendora Avenue at
Service Road entrance South of Dalewood Street
C. C. 8-22-60
Page Three
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVE- LOCATION: South side of Rowland Avenue, west
MENTS PROJECT NO. C- of Homerest Avenue.
129
(Crowell & Larson Accept street improvements, subject to Notice
Construction of Completion procedure.
Company)
APPROVED
The City Clerk indicated the Inspectors Final Report and Notice of
Completion had been received relative to the above items.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried
that street improvements be accepted in Tract No. 16457, Project No.
C-43 and Project No. C-129 in accordance with the Agenda.
EXTEND AGREEMENT LOCATION: East side of Sunset Avenue, south
TIME TRACT No. 24909 of Cameron Avenue.
(Maurice Kandel)
APPROVED Extend agreement time to install street improve-
ments and tract monuments in Tract No. 24909 for
a period of 6 months .....to January 9, 1961.
EXTEND AGREEMENT LOCATION: South.of Puente Avenue, west of
TIME TRACT NO. 20199 Lark Ellen Avenue.
(Frank C. Sheldon)
APPROVED Extend agreement time to install street improve-
ments in Tract No. 20199 for a period of 9 months -
to December 13, 1960.
The City Clerk indicated that relative to the monument installation this
would be subject to inspection by the County Engineering Department and
the recommendation on both items was to permit the extensions of time.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried,
that the extension of agreement:time relative to Tracts No. 24909 and
20199 be approved, in accordance with the Agenda, and subject to the
recommendations of the staff.
ACCEPT SEWER FACILITIES LOCATION: Evanwood Avenue and Glendale Street.
TRACT NO. 25527
(R. A. Watt) Accept sewer facilities.
APPROVED
ACCEPT SEWER FACILITIES
PROJECT NO. SS-10
(Chorale Construction
Co. ),
APPROVED
LOCATION: Montezuma Way and Vine Avenue
Accept sewer facilities and authorize release
of Industrial Indemnity Company Bond No. VS -
019469 in the amount of $832.11 subject to
Notice of Completion procedure.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried,.
that sewer facilities in Tract No. 25527 and Project No. 38-10 be
accepted, in accordance with the Agenda, and subject to the recommendations
of the staff.
S RESOLUTION NO,
County Sanitary
Improvement No.
ADOPTED
1915 The City Clerk presented:
Sewer "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
2134-M WEST COVINA GRANTING CONSENT AND JURISDICTION
TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN THE N/fT--r E K1 of
COUNTY IMPROVEMENT QW NO, 2134-M, RIO DE ORO
AND OTHER RIGHTS OF WAY.'!
Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further
reading of the body of the Resolution.
C. C 0 8-22-60
Page Four
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. 1915
APPROVE PLANS AND LOCATION: Corporation Yard on South Sunset
SPECIFICATIONS OF Avenue
PROJECT NO. SS-6a
APPROVED Approve sanitary sewer plans and specifications
and authorize the City Engineer to call for
informal bids.
City Manager Aiassa: This is for informal bids as the cost is only
$1500.00. This is a continuation of the existing
sewer put in last year and will serve the Washrack
and other building(s)o This was approved when
you adopted the budget, but you did not approve the specifications nor
give authorization -to invite informal bids.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder that the plans
and specifications of Project No, SS-6a be approved and authorization given
for the City Engineer to call for informal bids.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: Councilman.Brown
Absent: None
Councilman Brown stated that he was opposed to the development of the
Corporation Yard and that was the only reason he was voting against
this particular matter,
SCHEDULED MATTERS
HEARINGS
ZONE VARIANCE NO, 316
and
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
NO. 13 (Rev. 6)
(Von°s Property Company)
DENIED
LOCATION: 930 Soo Glendora Avenue between
Service and Merced Avenues.
Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 934
and 935 on July 20, 1960, denied a request
to permit street use in Zone R-A and C-1 and
denied adoption of precise plan of design.
Appealed by Applicant on July 28, 1960.
Maps were presented by the City Clerk and the resolution(s) of the
Planning Commission were read.
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing, stated that Council was operating
under Ordinance No. 502 and that all those desiring to present testimony
should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk.
C. C. 8-22-60
IN FAVOR
Mr. D. Cunningham
3723 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles
Page Five
I am consultant for the applicant and
with me this evening is Mr. Barney Sheridan
who is a member of our Construction Department.
I will open this by commenting on the six items which the Commission felt
were the determining factors in turning this request down.
Regarding the street opening. This was done unknowingly to Von°s who,
perhaps, didn't follow as closely as they might have in this matter.
We are willing to submit to an independent laboratory, core samples
test of the roadbed, pay for it if it is ordered and have the reports
delivered to the City. If it is substandard to City streets, the
contractor shall repair the street and Von°s will see to it that it shall
be done. If it is now substandard it will become completely standard, if
approved.
It was indicated this solely benefits Von°s property. However, we do not
own the entire shopping center, only the property upon which the building
sits and the frontage out to the street of Glendora. The balance is owned
by several people and they, also, would be benefited. There is also some
merit to shoppers being benefited by more adequate approaches to the area.
There is a petition circulated today and yesterday, containing 56 signa-
tures of owners of properties to the west, who feel this is true.
Regarding the fact that this would establish a zone change by a variance,
we would admit that if this is permitted it would be a commercial drive-
way across residentially zoned property, but a variance would establish
only one use of commercial zoning and not all uses of commercial zoning
and we are asking for a variance because of only one commercial use and
not for a change of zone to C-1, which would permit all rights of that
zoning.
It was indicated that it would jeopardize the subdivision of the balance
of the block. However, I have looked at Block Study 45 and was assured.
that it was not necessarily adopted and might be subject to change, and
it did show a street as indicated on our plan. I heard from Mr. Sheridan
that if it were done, Von°s would be blockaded by a 6-foot masonry -wall,
and I am wondering if that is discriminatory by taking property with
permitted access to that street? An alternate plan could--be-worked
out if this street -were approved and the property is not so small over
to California Street that it has to be done In only one way.
The denial states this granting would be discriminatory and presents a
special privilege. But I ask if every variance isn't a special privilege
to a lesser or.greater degree? Some shopping centers have access to two
or three different streets, and this has only one,and to grant this
request would establish only two different ways to it, while many of your
other shopping centers have three different ways in and out of them.
Von°s first showed this driveway on a particular plan, #-A, in 1959 which
was a landscaping and grading plan. Subsequently another plan was sub-
mitted, Amendment No. 5, and it didn't show the driveway and wasn't con-
cerned with a driveway, and it was indicated since the driveway was not
shown, there was some skullduggery. However, in the building plans
drawn in April of 1959, the driveway is shown on three of the 4 sheets
stamped "received" by the City Building Department in May, 1959. This
laid off the driveway right here and under it there is the statement,
t9to construct street paving from northerly property line to California
Street, see Sheet 4." The legal description says it is a new street.
C. C. 8-22-60
Mr. Cunningham cunt°d.
Page Six
Sheet 2 is the contour and grading sheet which shows for grading, "see
improvement plan for proposed driveway to be located." The fourth sheet of
the set of plans states clearly that this is the specifications for pro-
posed intersection of California Street and this private street. It is the
street improvement plan. There is more on the plan and profile and the
bond of this improvement plan relative to the private road shown shown. I
do not know what was presented to the City in connection with the original
change of zone, but insofar as Von°s is concerned, there was no intent to
9°bootleg" a street into this location.
The last development was the receipt of a letter from the Planning
Director drawing this matter to our attention.
Mr. Sheridan-. Since we received the letter referred
to by Mr. Cunningham, which was on
March 17, we have taken a count of the
actual checks cashed in the store and
placed them on a map so that we knew which direction and locality the
people shopping in our store might live. We find that 75% of all of our
shoppers lie to the west.
The success or failure of a store depends on the convenience, quality,
and value the housewife experiences in doing her shopping. We feel that
we can control the value of merchandise to a competitive spirit, and we
feel we can control the quality as we are now our own buyers, but one
thing that we do not have all. the control over is the convenience of our
shopping center. Therefore, the convenience of any shopping center
is -getting from home to the shopping center with the least trouble and
without taking anything from remarks to be made regarding left-hand
turns. I would introduce Mr. Walter Vondera who is a member of the Board
of Directors and in industrial relations.
Mr. Vondera-. When we move into a community, we want
to among other things of running a
business, have our managers participate
in service clubs of the community and offer a convenience and service to
the community.
If you say this access road would be creating a hazard, we would want
no part of it because regardless of its convenience, people are more
important than that particular phase of it, but we should weigh the
3 or 4 left-hand turns relative to the convenience described.
Mr. Cunningham-. We show the site at about the center
of this map and have marked the
particular location of Von°s building
within the totally zoned area and outlined the streets that seem to be the
feeder streets to the center from all directions, excluding the south. We
are concerned, primarily, with access from the west side. You must go
to the feeder street and make a right turn and come down Merced, with a
left-hand turn onto Glendora Avenue and an additional left-hand turn from
Glendora into the property. We know that if a certain percentage of the
traffic could turn off from California and into that property, there would
•be a better dispersal of traffic, and traffic around Vine, Merced, and
Glendora would be helped. There are even some who believe a shopping center
should have disbursement of traffic to four streets. Schools generally are
bounded by sufficient streets to enable people to get away very quickly when
bringing or picking up children relative to school time.
Wescove School and this proposed road would intersect California Street,
and there is opposition to that, but there is a possible advantage in that
you are not putting a street directly into a single family residential
area.... the school is a non-residential use. A street at that location
would enable a turn into this property instead of going to Merced, and
there are other schools in the City on busy traveled streets, and they
do not experience any great detriment, so I do not think this would be
C. C. 8-22®80 Page Seven
Mr. Cunningham cont'd.
creating additional traffic, but would help to more adequately disperse
what is already there over this additional access road. Additional inter-
sections may create hazards, but when a street becomes overloaded, then
additional roads serve to disperse rather than compound a traffic situation.
California is an access road from the Freeway. I.know there is a
proposal to run Vincent Street through with a connection on Glendora,
but right now people from the north are coming down California as it
is an easy connection from the freeway, so that California is not
as desirable for residential as it might be, and again I would remind you
that we are not creating traffic but actually dispersing what is already
there.
We cannot get, with the existing street pattern, the kind of a draw from
the west that we should have. We.are-not going.to admit we are at fault,
but somebody dropped the ball and this street must be used or dug up.
.Mr. F. Bowker I am the owner of the property directly south
18 LaGunita and the property which this half street runs
Laguna'Beach and possibly I was partially guilty to have this
exist, because I gave the easement to provide
access to the parking area for their use, as well
as the rest of the tenants. The shopping area and
all others concerned are very unhappy over it being barricaded right now.
But in addition to access, there had to be a place to drain water from
the parking area, and that was one of the considerations of granting.....
of draining the whole area.... and that drainage had to go out to the
southwest of California, and there wasn't a more likely way of doing it
than creating this half street.
I have a prospective tenant for some of the property, but they feel
this half street is necessary for their business, and if this is not
permitted it is the feeling this will drive business down to the shopping
area on Glendora in La Puente, and I do not think we want to do this but
want to have healthy tenants here if we can.
IN OPPOSITION
Mr. M. F. Gaines I was at a meeting with Mr. Gerschler, your
914 W. Barbara previous Planning Director, before Von's was
built, but this wasn't called a road but a
drainage ditch to drain the shopping center onto
California. It was simply referred to as a ditch for drainage.
Since thsy have opened the road I use it, but I notice that as you are
attempting to leave this road and enter California, the front end of the
vehicle goes up about 2 feet while making a, right turn from this service
road onto California, there is some loss of visibility, and you do not
have complete control of the car. There is a very sharp rise from the
service road up to California, and I presume this is necessary because
it must sloap to drain water, so I do not think that attempting to use
this road for the purposes indicated are very practical.
• The road does stop right at a school where in September there will be
children up to the sixth grade and who must cross California, and
people will be leaving -this road and entering California, and since
regrading California you can't say how much higher it is. I haven't
been able to use the service road since they regraded California, -but
once school is open if the rise is as bad as it is now, you won't see
children when you make the right-hand turn without creating a hazard.
Co C o 8-22-60
Mr, M. F. Gaines, contd.
Page Eight
I. have been a policeman in Los Angeles for 71 years and 3J years were
devoted to traffic control, and this is what is called an "apple orchard"
and violations are constantly issued, because people can't yield
right-of-way.because they can't see traffic, and if they do see it,they
have to take the chance because you have to turn so slowly.
Being incomplete you do not know how much use it would have and
whether it would be wide enough to handle the traffic it is supposed
to. It is better to use Merced with its 4-way boulevard stop and make
a2 left-hand turn and go to Glendora, although I will admit something is
wrong so far as traffic control in order to get onto Glendora, but
that could be remedied by a study of. Glendora and not a little side
street in the middle of the field.
Mrs. Fusann We have checked this road through out living
848 We Barbara room as the building is quite visible, and
we can also view the road very well. We have
observed commercial trucks, such as bread
trucks and "coke" trucks, using the road which we feel forms a definite
hazard onto California with the new school. There will be children
from Kindergarten through the sixth grade which are young children and who
can't always be expected to look out for everything and everybody.
There are no sidewalks for the school on either side of California and
the children have to walk in the street. There is also a very bad
gutter,which in winter is full of water, and this would mean the
children would have to walk even further into the street, and those cars
coming off of the service road would have difficulty in watching for
these children.
We have checked very thoroughly to see if a crossing guard is necessary
for that area, but there are so many requests for crossing guards as
against what is available that we do not think we will be able to
have one here, but just a crosswalk.
We feel this is also a violation against property owners around there
for their protection, and it doesn't help the K-1 property. It is handy
to this use, but it is just as handy to go to Merced.
Mrs. Mn Gaines In relation to the petition mentioned that
1914 W. Barbara has been circulated ..... I had a neighbor call
us today, and it was a quick thing and the people
who signed the petition like to use this route
000noi do t000,,,and it is closer and quicker. I send my daughter to the
store, and she uses this area to enter, however, I do not think it is
good, although it is convenient, but that doesn't make it a good thing,
and you know the reasons for the Planning Commission's turning it down.
It isn't a correct thing, even though more convenient, and it wasn't
correct for them to put the street through, and it is up to the Council
to protect the people even though it may be more convenient.
Everybody that builds something without getting a permit goes through a
hardship if they have to remove it. It is more convenient for lots of
people not to get a permit if they want to build something on their
property, but there are times it must be removed or done over because it
wasn't appropriate in the first place and not done!the way it should
have been done,
Co Co 8-22-60
Mrs. M. Gaines cone°de
Page Nine
You know we are now petitioning against zoning previously done there, and
there have been study plans made, although it was stated it does not
necessarily indicate they will be there. You should consider the fact
there is a possibility that what you have zoned may not be there either
and also that this study plan that shows the streets wasn't one adopted
by the Commission when they did adopt it.
IN REBUTTAL
Mr. Cunningham: If the road now existing in the locations from
here to here and is to carry commercial traffic
onto California, there is the possibility
traffic might do this and arrive at the same
locations. I wonder, here, if we aren't solely considering on this
whether the balance of the block to the west could be reasonably sub-
divided if the street remains, and whether it couldn't. There are plans
that indicate it could be feasible even with leaving the road at its
present location.
If the City feels there is a deficiency at the hump or dip at California,
we will have the condition in the variance requiring adequate plans to
be submitted for reconstruction and bonds submitted.
There are no sidewalks along California, but again, traffic from the
west to this shopping center will go past that street anyway, and there
will still be no sidewalks whether the street is there or not, and has
no effect.
The private street has sidewalks and any child wanting to walk through
to the east can do so on a sidewalk.
It was stated the present street is convenient, but not good, and 1 would
simply ask, is it better or worse than the street proposed on the
alternate study?
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Towner: It is a matter of convenience to the people it
serves. However, there are problems of develop-
ment and problems relative to the street as
to its getting bigger as property develops. It should, possibly, be
dedicated and brought to City standards. That street might be in the
proper location and may be indicated by studies, but it is definitely not
something that is solidified.
The fact of putting in a street without proper permits doesn't create
a hardship to give any corresponding benefits of getting a variance,''
but access to the store from Glendora may create a hardship.
There are considerable points on both side of the story here.
C� J
C. C. 8-22-60 Page Ten
Councilman Browne I agree with Councilman Towner in some respects.
So far as property owners relative to the street,
it has caused great confusion not only to Von°s, but to the City which
had inspectors on it before it was discovered that it was not on the
original plan approved. I think at the time the permits were taken out
it was thought this was what had been approved, and I think the applicant
was sincere in their thought this was what had been approved. This was a
pricise plan approved by the Commission and was never before Council
again.
If we are going to have shopping areas such as this, we are going to have
ready ingress and egress to the property, or it will be dormant and cost
the City money too.
So far as sidewalks by the school, this is required,and the property to
the south, as it develops, will have sidewalks too.
All block studies in the past show street patterns breaking this cluster
up so there is flow through to Glendora. At one time Vine was supposed
to come down and align approximately at Vine and California southeast
of present Vine Avenue. The original alignment went through the school
property.
So far as the intersection of California and this private road, the
elevations, I am sure, can be fixed to where there is no dip but
improving the section of the street there. Apparently this is a 30-
foot driveway....
Mr.. Dosh: About 24-feet.
Councilman Brown: It should be developed to City standards but
not accepted until such time as the rest of
the area is developed.
Councilman Barnes: In hearing the testimony I think, perhaps, the
applicant has a good point relative to traffic
flow into his property, but I do not think
permission should be granted on the basis that a private street be put
in without first checking all the ordinances and the precise plan
that was passed. None of our street patterns call for the street going
out directly behind Von°s, therefore, I think this is very bad.
I think we are trying to stop heavy traffic on California. It is a
residential street, and this will feed quite a bit of traffic onto
California, and you do have a traffic problem with children at this
school.
However, I feel that we will have to come up with a street pattern
that will not disturb most of the traffic flow and without depriving
the market, and I think this is possible.
I do not think we should use the street as a drainage ditch and if
put in properly you won't have to use streets.
I think all streets should be up to City standards -and all requirements
met.
I think there are points in favor and against, and it is difficult,
without a street pattern study, to determine this.
Co Co 8-22-60
Councilman Snyder: I think both sides of
well presented, and it
to decide.
Page Eleven
the argument have been
is a difficult matter
. However, I particularly do not like the way the street comes out
directly in front of the school and so far as the feeder street, going
in, in the not too distant future, will be a change at Merced, and
signals to make left turns more easily and the feeder street to the north
will be directed in such a way as to come down Glendora.
There are strong arguments both ways, but I feel the bulk of the
argument is not in favor of granting this.
Mayor Heath: We have a petition argued by 50 people
stating in.favor to the Iffect this street
is a convenience. I believe we have to support
out businesses in the City, and I certainly feel that anything we can
do to get people into the business distridt is to our advantage.
I feel Glendora is heavily traveled, and that there are a number of
problem intersections, especially at Vine and Glendora, and any load
taken from that area would be a good idea.
So far as California, if the indications for the corners of Merced
and California is standing, it -gives evidence of the fact California
Avenue will be lowered when it is improved.
If you will view the streets cutting from east to west, we have Merced
to the south, and the next street cutting through is.Service Avenue,
which is quite a way north, Therefore, I believe any traffic making
a turn at Merced and Glendora, even though signalizbd, and making a
left turn at Vine and Glendora, constitutes a traffic hazard.
I would be in favor of leaving the street in and to be used Vwt�ulider
the stipulations of our staff; one of them.being that easement be
granted to the City, a proper test be.made to see the street is up to
City standards, that the street be widened to its full width, and
that it be dedicated to the City at the time of the development of tithe
Councilman Snyder: However, discussion here in the past has
been that as soon as the Vincent Avenue
Extension went through, that California would
return to its primary purpose, which is to service a residential area.
There was also considerable discussion about a street from the Weizel
property coming out on California, and that was turned down because it
was wanted to avoid putting more traffic onto California.
I think Glendora will be a primary street and see no reason to keep
traffic from going onto Glendora.
area
I think we are being inconsistent here in that one moment we say we
want to feed onto California, and less than two months ago we didn't
want any more traffic feeding onto California.
Mayor Heath: In my discussion on the Weizel case, I was in
favor of an access to California. I still feel
I would just as soon see some traffic taken
off Glendora, especially where we have some corners and problem
intersections that are there now.
Co C. 8-22-60
Mayor Heath cone°de
Page Twelve
So far as trucks traveling on California, I believe California is
. posted against trucks or heavy vehicles which means the only traffic
down on California wouldn't be trucks, but the shoppers on the.way to
the market and returning again.
Councilman Towner: Normally,I start off with the basic premise
that the Commissions or Boards of the City
have studied these matters thoroughly, and there
is sound reasoning behind their recommendations, and recommendations
should be followed unless there is very strong reasons to the contrary.
This is a close question , and I can see the conveniences of leaving
the street in, and I can see it may possibly turn out that the
eventual development of the property would call for a street there, but
against that we have sound reasoning of the Commission, the only one
that I feel may not be a sound reason is the one indicating it is
solely for the benefit of Von°s property. In place of that you could
insert that it is a traffic hazard, at its present rate anyway.
Mayor Heath: I would agree and perhaps we should give this
more thought before acting upon it.
Councilman Snyder: From one standpoint, there is expense and
money involved, and perhaps further consider-
ation should be undertaken.
Councilman Towner: If we study it, or send it back to the
Commission, there should certainly be a
complete traffic and circulation study. We
have block studies, which,w how the westerly properties are going to d'
go, I do not know how we can get a more definite study on it.
Mayor Heath: We have studies here, one of which has been
recommended, and both have access to California
at the same identical spot where you have
this street, and evidently it is a consistent point made by the
Planning Department and Commission that there will be an access here
eventually,
Councilman Towner: Studies were made out of what was already
existing there.
Councilman Brown: Old block studies show access from both
streets on this property. These block studies
were only in relation to Weizel property. I
doubt, too, that this street is sub -standard; the only real point is'
where it connects to California.
Their denial lies in the fact the street was in there, but I thought
at the time the precise plan was originally passed that they had access
from California, and at ground breaking it was stated they would have
access and not only Von°s thought so, but other property owners there
at that time thought that was approved.
Councilman Barnes: The block study wasn't only in relation to
Von°s and Weizel, but for all of the area;
so it was my thinking that the block study .on the
right was adopted, deleting the street out to California so only a
portion of this street would go to California.
C. C. 8-22-66
Page Thirteen
Councilman Snyder: It seems to me that access from Merced is more
sensible, and it doesn't seem logical to
bring this street out directly in front of
. school.
Councilman Brown. The times of greatest use for a school and
shopping area do not necessarily conflict.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that Zone
Variance No. 316 be denied. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes; Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Snyder..
Noes: Councilman Brown, Mayor Heath
Absent : None
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that
Precise Plan of Design No. 13 (Rev. 6) by denied for the reason that
the zone variance was denied. Motion passed toga r,6l1gc 11.�%-'r,l;f4ol°lows:
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Snyder
Noes: Councilman Brown and Mayor Heath
Absent: None
Mayor Heath called a recess. Council reconvened at 9:15 P.M.
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FRANK B. BOWKER
NO. 238 LOCATION., South side of Walnut Creek
CONTINUED TO NEXT Parkway, between California and Vincent
REGULAR MEETING Avenues.
Appealed to Council on July 25, 1960;
Letter from proponent requests delay..of
decision pending completion of negotiations
with County Flood Control for additional R/W.
The City Clerkppeaen**dand read a communication from Mr. Frank B.
Bowker, dated August 9, 1960, requesting this matter be continued
pending completion of negotations.
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated all those desiring
to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk.
Mr. Frank Bowker, applicant, presented himself to Council and in-
dicated that he would have no testimony to give, but would desire
continuation as indicated in the communication.
There was no further testimony presented.
Discussion was held on the period of continuation, and Mr. Newell .
indicated that since this was a published notice of hearing it would
be better to continue it to .subsequent meetingirather than until
negotiations are settled or for a specific number of days.
Motion, by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that Precise Plan of Design No. 238 be continued to next
regular meeting.
0
i
C. C. 8-22-60
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 317
Safeway Stores, Inc.
APPROVED IN THE ENTIRETY
OF THE REQUEST
FOR VARIANCE
Page Fourteen
LOCATION.- 1432 Puente Avenue, between
Irwindale and Yaleton Avenues.
Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 932
on July 6, 1960, approved request for
identifying signs with certain conditions
of modification. Appealed by the applicant
on July 15, 1960.
Hearing opened on August 8, 1960 and continued at the request of
applicant.
IN FAVOR
Mr. Paul Egly
I am the attorney for the applicant.
The property was formerly zoned C-2, and a precise plan was presented
for the development of the property relative to the construction of a
Safeway Store, and at that time it was indicated there were some
signs wanted,one of which is indicated in the photographs and is of
the building shown from the corner of Eckerman Avenue and Irwindale
looking directly west to the building. At that time, the sign was
shown in its present position and was permitted to be erected as is.
There is a photograph which shows a sign on the front and was shown
on the precise plan, and a building permit was granted for that way.
In addition, there were two detached signs which is small Safeway
with "S" denoting parking entrance, and the second sign back of
the.intersections of Puente and Irwindale, off the Mobile Station.
In order to get the one detached sign out on Irwindale and then
another sign which is indicated on the variance, which is identifying
"S" on the front of building, looking north, a variance was needed'.
The matter was presented before the Commission, and they stated
that was fine and didn't care about signs on the north, but there
should be no signs on the east side overlooking Irwindale, so
permission was obtained for the identifying "S", but we were to take
down signs on the side of the building ... on the east.
We are asking for approval of what is up, and submit, the whole
thing except for the "S" on the north.
The main objection to the sign on the east was that houses across
the street on Irwindale would be affected, but the sign which is on
the east side, and that it not detached but against the building,
as the picture shows would affect the homes but very little:::.:;
if at all. We have come up with these pictures so that you can see
that the Commission took account of the words rather than the
actual facts as the pictures actually show how this effects R-1 around
there.
As this now stands, we are in violation of the sign ordinance, but
they are up, and it was thought they were legal, and then it was
found they weren't, and we had to go before the Commission, and they
said we can have the '.'S" but not the signs you now have.
We are concerned with keeping the sign on the east side because
other than the detached sign south of Mobil Service Station, there
is no other sign to be seen from Irwindale. The only people
affected would be across Irwindale and Eckerman at Puente, but
there are two service stations on the corners which draw more.light
than that whole side of the Safeway building.
CJ
i
C. C. 8-22-60
Page Fifteen
City Manager For the record, it would appear the sign
Aiassa: company made an error as well as our
Planning Department. It was listed as
136 square feet on the Precise Plan, and the Building Permit shows
136 square feet, but when they designed andckected the sign it
became nonconforming, but makes one wonder if the sign company read
the permit or ordinance requirement.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was.declared closed.
Councilman Towner: As I would understand it, the only sign
at issue is the one at the east elevation
area, the one attached to the east side
of the building. What is the difference between the sign on the
building and what the ordinance provides?
Mr. Josephs
is 136 square
and taken off
Mayor Heath:
City Manager
Aiassa:.
The ordinance states two signs, each 120
square feet and the variance is for 297
square feet of sign, plu's a 30 square foot
sign in front. The sign on the building
feet, and this could be reduced to 120 square feet
the parapet.
in with a good design
ordinance. A variance
Councilman Brown:
From a look at the changes in the sign
ordinance, does it look like this sign
would comply with any revisions?
I do not think so. You'll continue having
problems of design that these buildings are
going to have, but I think Commission and
Council have control. Architect may come
which doesn't conform completely to the sign
could be ,justified.
I wonder if anybody has seen this store?
I think the sign is adequate, and I do not
think it is detrimental to anybody.
Mayor Heath: I would like to Aold this until the sign
ordinance is revised to see if this
doesn't come within the scope of it.
Councilman Barnes: But in the meantime you wouldn't penalize
them to take it down until.the.sign
ordinance is revised, would you?
Councilman Brown., It is violating the law, and you can't
just say go ahead -and violate it.
Councilman Towner:. The Planning Commission action was
justified in the grenting:of the variance
already given from the ordinance. From
looking at the pictures, I see no benefit to the property owners.
Thekuget more from the freestanding one at Irwindale than this one
and so long as we have the ordinance we should stick to it unless
there is substantial reason for departing from it.
Councilman Brown: I..have.aiways felt it was too restrictive
and you should give more advantage.
G. C. 8-22-60
Page Sixteen
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried that Zone Variance No. 317 be granted in its entirety.
• Councilman Towner voting "No."
Councilman Towner: Suppose we do revise the sign ordinance,
we will still be faced with the same type
of problem that every sign that comes in
will be by variance, and the difficulty is that you get yourself
in a discriminatory situation in that it appears that the man who
asks for the most gets the most, or the man who knows the right
people, and that shouldn't happen. We should have definite lines
drawn by ordinance and adhere to them.
Mayor Heath: Speaking for myself in the time I have
been on Council, I.can recall the trouble
this ordinance has given us. When business
comes in, it has the right to advertise and to give notification
they are in business. For this 2J years, it has been a consistent
indication that the sign ordinance isn't right, and revision was
needed, and I hope that when it is revised there won't be A'ineed
for variance, and if it is drawn up right, I think this will be
the case.
City Manager
Aiassa:
and more variations of
ZONE CHANGE NO. 166
Edward L. LaBerge,Jr.
HELD OVER TO NEXT
REGULAR MEETING
A sign ordinance is like a zoning
ordinance and with these modernistic
type building you are going to get more
design and etc.
LOCATION- East side of Azusa Avenue,
between Edkerman Avenue and Danes Drive.
REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY TO THE "HIGHEST AND
BEST USED." Existing Zone - R-1.
On August 11, 1960, City Council by motion referred the matter to
the Planning Commission to "investigate for the possibility of
R-P use with a Precise Plan.°" Review report of Planning Commission.
Mayor Heath: Was the Commission aware of the fact
that to make this R-3 would require
certain setback from Azusa and Eckerman
to a point where it would be only one-story?
Councilman Towner: They were aware we raised this point at
Council level, but they were not aware of
what the setback would be and neither was
L. It was mentioned it was a. "policy of Council" as Councilman
Brown brought up, and I told them this, but so far as I know there
is no legal setback requirement here.
City Clerk Flotten: The report submitted relative to the
Commission meeting of August l71ndicated
they voted to reject Precise Plan No. 242
as submitted because of the inadequacy of parking spaces, and the
only way it could be developed into R-P would be sub -standard.
0
C. Co 8-22-:60 Page Seventeen
Councilman Brown: When this was held over, I believe it was
the feeling of Council that they weren't
willing to consider this zoning unless
they had a plan in front of them. There was a plan in front of
the Commission which was turned down, but there has been no appeal
to the Council. We have no plan before use
City Clerk Flotten< We now have a letter of appeal on this
plan,
Councilman Browns In that case, this should be held over
pending the presentation of the plan to
usa
Mayor Heath: With this plan for •R-P or R-3?
Councilman Towner: It was for R-P and was a plan previously
submitted, and was now resubmitted,
Mayor Heath: They denied this shouldn't be R-Pe
Councilman Brown; No, it would seem it was on adequate
parking facilities and good useability.
Councilman Towner: They didn't like the plan for R-P for the
reasons stated in the report, and they
also were still of -..the opinion this
should go to R-3 development.
Mayor Heath: Are they aware of the necessary require-
ments for R-3? If they are not aware
of Councils previous policies on setbacks,
I think they should be aware of it before evaluating the case.
Councilman Towner: That may be true, but we are not bound
by prior policy or prior City Councils,
and the main problem is, can this be
reasonably developed into R-P with a reasonable precise plan to
provide protections to the homes there and at the same time get a
usabld piece of property. I agree we should pass on the zoning
after seeing the precise plan, as stated by Councilman Brown,
which isn't in front of us.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that Zone Change No. 166 be held over until the meeting
of September 12, 1960.
PLANNING COMMISSION
METES AND BOUNDS
SUBDIVISION NO, 135-171
Mrs. Gertrude Milliken
HELD OVER
TO NEXT REGULAR MEETING
LOCATION On the north side of Lark
Hill Drive, southeast of Springmeadow Drive.
1.76 Acres - 2 Lots - Area District III
Approval recommended by the Planning.
Commission on August 3, 1960.
Hearing opened August 8, 1960 and continued at the request of
applicant.
Co Co 8-22-60
Page Eighteen
Mrs. Go Milliken, applicant, of 454 W. Palm Drive, Covina, requested
that due to an infirTity she would request that her two sons, who
were present at this meeting, should speak in her behalf.
Mrs. E. Samuels I have a letter from the architectural
333 No. Citrus committee approving this lot split and
West Covina the terms and conditions which this
committee imposes already contributes
$325.00 to the City to cover the cost of
fire hydrant installation and engineering as share of fire protection,
and that any power to these sites will be from existing poles or
else must go underground so that no additional poles are installed
in the tract.
As you all know, since having subdivided this tract originally, I
have had great interest in it and taken an active part in most of
the things that have come up. I have served on the architectural
committee and have no financial or personal interest in this
application. I did not sell the lot so there are no commissions
or fees involved, so I am speaking in the interest of the people
in the area, as well as the applicant herself.
I feel the condition of the Commission as regards the recommendations
for curbs, gutters and street widening is very much a hardship case,
and I am not criticizing the Commission in doing this, because it
could only make its decision based on some City ordinance, and this
area is in the City. It would be a hardship on the property owner
both an esthetic standpoint and property standpoint in that this
would be detrimental to the whole tracts There is a long expanse
of frontage on this street bordering the Country Club to the east,
and it goes on around the hill and will probably never have curbs
and gutters on it, and the people in the tract feel they do not
want curbs and gutters in the tract. One portion along the strip
where this street touches Latk Hill Drive on the south would be
at a dead-end at both ends.
Another thing I would point out is that there was a lot split
application before the Commission of Neil Campbell, and the
Commission made the same recommendation. However, I understand
there was no appeal and if not, it was because his business is
conducting tours, and he left immediately after that hearing
and will only be back just before school starts.
Mrs. Samuels designated on the map the various lot splits made
in the area.
What you come up with is an isolated strip of curb and gutter
which is an eyesore to look at in hillside and country type
property which the people in there like.
I ask, simply from appearance of the tract esthetically and the
welfare of those properties in there that we do not have two
spots of curbs and gutters which serve no purpose.
Mr. 0> Rebholtz
Pond Engineering
2702 Rowland
Covina
only from frontage on the
One thing;I would like to point out is
that this frontage on this lot has no
value to applicant except as an access
standpoint, the same as other lots in the
tract, which come in from this road and
can't have access from Lark Hill Drive but
cul-de-sac.
C. Co 8-22-60
Mr, 0. Rebholtz cunt°d,
Page Nineteen
On this lot, the road is off center from the south and 5-feet of
pavement projects northerly from center line so that part of the
road is on a steep slope into the property which is considerable
and which is the reason why access was denied here, and it wasn't
wanted off this roads It has been estimated this would cost
6000 to 8000 dollars to fix this road, it is so steep, and it
would have to be "benched." The unit prices for these lot
splits would be large throughout the tract, because of the small
nature of the job and there would have to be a large unit price.
I would point out from the esthetic point of view, that I do not
believe that in a 100 years these properties would be improved
with these lot splits. Some can't be split so there would be
no improvements. I know of no one who has plans to split lots in
the near future, through inquiry.
You would have an overlapping condition that would be costly and
dangerous in some spots. New curbs joining to old and each curb
successfully newer as it came in over who knows how many years.
If the City objects to the present paving which it says is a
maintenance cost which is excessive, I would fail to see where
an occasional widening cf_.thtsroad would lessen the maintenance cost..
Mr. A. Milliken I would point out that the applicant
776 W. Chester Rd. is not one who is trying to shirk her
West Covina duties and has always stepped in to pay
her share of the load in worthwhile
community projects which is witnessed by her joining the sewer
project started some years ago and now a part of the City sewer
system.
The City asked for a 20-foot driveway off Springmeadow and 15-foot
had been planned, but the applicant thinks the request is valid
and sound. Also requested was additional fire protection, which
hadn't been pointed out to the applicant, but it is felt this, too
is fair and sound.
-However, the excessive cost of curbs and gutters seem a little
unreasonable, and it is felt that Council should do the fair
and right think in the matter,
Mrs. Samuels: It seems there is an important matter of
cost here, and I have seen many times,
people come in with requests relative to
something they want to do, because it means
a lot of money to them. This lot was sold 14 years ago, and anyone
that can hold a lot for 14 years and make money on it raises a
question:.in my mind....I don't know how. When it was bought, there
was a plan to build, but it didn't work out, so this is no money
making scheme but a practical approach to adding one more lovely
and highly desirable home in West Covina.
Elizabeth Elliott; I am the real estate broker and have
witnessed the development in that area.
I think it has added a great deal of
taxable revenue to the City, and if there is anything we can do
to further that type of development, it will be to everyone's
mutual benefit. When all the lots are split that can be, and all
are built, the City will benefit, and if it then seems reasonable
to improve the roads and add street lights, you will have an
equitable build-up area to assist in that project.
C. C. 8-22-60
Page twenty
Mr. J. Milliken We have a deposit on this lot, and we
636 So. Barranca think it is a nice section'of country
here and intend to build a home in this
19 area and especially on this lot.
There are 50 lots in the subdivision, with 8 lots split, but
with apparently no requirements on them of this nature. The
applicant has expressed her willingness to do any and everything
which is recommended, such as widening access road, water hydrant,
anything to contribute to the general welfare of the area, but
the people 1,.have talked to feel the strip of curb up here instead
of putting something you would like to have there would be an eyesore.
This curb and gutter would be on the outside of the road and
wouldn't even carry water because of the grade of the road.
At any time anyone wants curbs and gutters on all of it, we would
be perfectly willing but for this one small piece it would be
very negligible in doing anybody any good and would be rather on
the reverse side.
Mr. J. Milliken There was mention at the Commission Meet-
454 Palm Drive ing of a natural spring on the property,
Covina but this has nothing to do with the
size of the lot, and we will comply with
the stipulation relative to this spring.
None of the neighbors are in opposition to the lot split, and if
we are required to place curbs and gutters here, we will be forced
to withdraw the application and sell it as one lot.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Towner: There seems to be a special problem here.
Normally we require improvements to be
put in, and we are catching up with them
in other such areas of the City, but here you have obvious
difficulties of a hillside situation, and property owners wouldn't
share proportionately in the benefits.
Maybe some consideration might be in order on this one.
Councilman Barnes: It is very unfortunate that this curb
and gutter has to be so long due to the
shape of the lot, but I feel we should
conform to the curbs and gutters in areas of this type. With our
street crews having to shape up streets which are constantly
disintegrating along the sides, we should continue to comply with
curbs and gutters. However, it does look as if there is a
hardship here, although I do not know how to solve it, because of
this little area out here that seems to be of no use to anyone ....
but I do not know the solution.
Councilman Snyder; It is my impression that this whole tract
is going to have to be curbed and
guttered eventually, and there may be
some inequities, but if it were done under the 1911 Act this lot,
because of the size, will still have to pay more than a lot that
has a less bit of frontage and whether we require it now or do it
under the'::1911 Act, I am in favor of seeing it done now.
Mayor Heath.- There is a problem and the entire area
up there is a problem. I have been led
to believe some want improvements and
others do not, and that some would go for the 1911 Act and some
wouldn't. This is enough of a problem to hold it over and a
tour be made of it by members of Council and then perhaps a
decision can be reached.
C. C. 8-22-60
Page Twenty -One
Councilman Towner: Personally, I have been over this many,
many times, and I am quite familiar with
it. You have a breaking down of pavement
at the edges of it, and it is a maintenance problem that shouldn't
be thrown on the general taxpayer the way it is, but maybe there
is something more equitable to the property owners in splitting
lots.
You have this owner putting in frontage, whereas probably others
won't be putting it in for many years, and this property owner
is not paying an equitable share that she might be if they all put
this in as a unit. If it is an alternative, perhaps we should
consider that.
Councilman Brown: I can't see 320-feet developed by one
party at this particular spot and to
widen it would create a worse traffic
hazard than is already up there and at this particular spot the
drainage slopes back to back.
So far as the 1911 Act, it doesn't have to be from frontage, but on
benefit received.
Councilman Snyder: Would you say the people of the City
should pay for the 320-feet?
Councilman Brown: Not on a 1911 Act.
Mayor Heath: There is a problem in this area and not
just this one lot. The Council should
review the area up there and as a total
parcel, with lots in mind, and possibly use the 1911 Act in that
area to put in streets, etc.
Councilman Snyder: Who is going to pay for this little
crescent moon area here?
Mayor Heath: It would be the same as the sewer
district where the benefits are pro-
rated. The property at the other end h"
43-feet.
Councilman Towner: The 1911 Act would give equal share of
the burden to go along with the equal
share of benefit. To protect the general
taxpayer, we must put improvements here.
Councilman Snyder: The problem is caused by the way.the
lots are laid out, and I do not think
the entire people in the City should
share the burden of maintenance here.
Councilman Barnes: I do not feel this is fair to ask this in
some places and not in others, but perhaps
as suggested, it could be studied and
some thought given to the 1911 Act.
Councilman Brown: It isn't only curbs and gutters, but
that this is hillside and isn't level,
and that must be taken into consideration.
C. C. 8-22-60
Councilman Barnes:
spot, and maybe it might
Page Twenty -Two
I agree, but we still have all of Lark
Hill to some day bring to standard,
and we may have this situation in one
be worse than other sports.
Mayor Heath: I feel we must set a policy to curbs
and gutters as lots are split. You are
going to have expense to put in improve-
ments on certain lots, and the only thing reasonable might be
the 1911 Act, but we should find out if it is wanted and put in
to share benefits.
Councilman Snyder: I do not see how you are penalizing
these people or being unreasonable.
They knew this lot shape and knew
that eventually this would have to have curbs and gutters.
Councilman Brown: We didn't require curbs and gutters until
a few years ago, and people didn't
know this when they bought it.
Mayor Heath When -there is a lot split, we then are
permitted to make an improvement
requirement, but after that lot split
is done, we do not have that property so in a lot split, we like to
be certain these things are to be done. Basically, if we do not
get it now we may never get it.
Councilman Brown: This is the third lot split in three
months in this area. One lot split
required curbs and gutters, and we heard
the man is on tour and the other is on flat ground.
Councilman Barnes: That is a private road. There were other
lot splits in the City, and we not only
required curbs and gutters, but also
required them for existing property.
Councilman Towner: What we are faced with here is that the
City does want improvements here in some
way or other, because it is out of the
taxpayers pocket for the benefit of a few; yet this possibly
penalizes a particular property owner as against.others in the area.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-171 be held
over until next regular meeting,for study.
REPORT ON SAN Chairman Jackson of the Planning
BERNARDINO AVENUE Commission stated that the resolution
ZONING of the Commission is ready to present,
maps are ready to present, and members
of the Commission are present to answer;;any questions.
1�
C. Co 8-22-60 Page Twenty -Three
The motion of the Commission was that the Planning Commission had
conducted an over-all zone study, and it is their report that it is the
consensus of opinion that this area be zoned for Industrial Park type
development for the reasons stated, and that if Council concurs, a
• directive should be given to initiate studies relative to this type of
use.
Mr. Joseph presented maps, with overlay, and indicated all the study
was based on the various discussions and the meetings with the City
of Covina and the Regional Planning Commission, as indicated in the
prepared report.
Mayor Heath stated, after it was indicated that the area is suggested
for entire M zoning, as well as the surrounding area of Covina and
other areas, that this was fine, but what if the electronic businesses
do not do well and would not remain there nor a demand be made for
such use, there would be a request possibly for heavier manufacturing
uses, metal shops, etc., and there should possibly be some buffering
against such uses because of the close proximity of the hospital.
Mr. Jackson indicated this was an industrial park type development,
and there would be considerable restrictions as to setbacks, landscaping,
and type of use to go in there, and that electronics would only be but
one possible use that would not be obnoxious or noisy and could be made
compatible to the hospital use and not detrimental to it..
Councilman Snyder indicated that there is a hospital in the City very
close to the freeway which is a worse detriment to such use than any
metal shop could be.
Mayor Heath stated that he still felt -that any possibility of any
heavy industrial use next to a hospital is not good.
Mr. Jackson stated that even welding can be held down from noise.
Councilman Brown indicated that the talk was about zoning this
industrial, but he was wondering why other industrial in the area
isn't developing. Mr. Jackson stated that there are some 23 property
owners involved, and the way it has developed it couldn't be expected
to have any concern invest substantial monies, and that those who are
acquainted with the industrial and manufacturing companies of
higher types know they are very much aware of the types of neighbors
they will have and areas they are in. Mr. Jackson indicated there were
no other places in the City really suitable for a higher type industrial
development, and that here is a chance to have a successful industrial
development and to do a good job. However, Councilman Brown was of the
opinion that restrictions are too heavy to get any such good development.'
Councilman Towner indicated the I-P.zone was to get good restrictions
to attract a higher manufacturing use, and it isn't just an alternative
between electronics and heavy industrial use.
Mayor Heath questioned as to whether there was access to this with
trucks, and Mr. Jackson indicated there is a master plan for the future
so far as Badillo is concerned, and the M.T.A. is giving consideration
here and that this isn't necessarily talking about today or next month,
but something in the future.
t
C.C. 8-22-60
Page Twenty -Four
Councilman Snyder stated he felt this study and report should be
commended, and it was what he had in mind for a long range development
of this property. However, Councilman Brown stated that he would agree,
but before there was an application filed on this property, but Council-
man Snyder stated that, "it was never too late to be saved."
Councilman Barnes stated that he had hoped that no manufacturing would
go south of San Bernardino Road, and there are evidently 13 years before
the present use of buildings there would be done away with. This area
probably couldn't be developed in this way because you are getting into
the residential part of the City. Mr. Jackson stated he would agree,
but Badillo is 100-feet wide and the R-1 backs up to the south. There
is no other place in the City where you have that really adequate type
of buffering from another use. Mr. Jackson also indicated that this
was also the recommendation of the City°s Chamber of Commerce and as
had been pointed out by them,'we have to make the climate in the City
conducive to industrial development which hasn't been done in the past.
Mayor Heath questioned, "why hasn't it developed?". You do not have
access to that area except through Badillo which eventually may be
done, but you haveanother 15 orl3 years of commercial use adjacent to
this property which is commercial and will stay commercial.
Councilman Barnes was of the opinion that it is a burden to hold onto
property if zoning doesn't take, and Mr. Jackson agreed, but stated that
there is never any guarantee that any property zoning is going to take.
Councilman Snyder indicated that if M zoning isn't seriously considered
here, the City.is going to be denied something that is really needed,
and the reason it can't be sold is that the City never had actually M
zoning for a client before.
Councilman Towner indicated that he felt the question was whether we
needed more commercial and apartment house zoning here, or if it is
suitable for the recommended use, and that it was well known that the
City needed no further commercial zoning, but that it did need
manufacturing and that here is practically one ownership on a piece
of property that lends itself to such a use, and that the need for more
tax revenue was the endorsement of the Planning Commission, Chamber of
Commerce and other study groups, and they also felt this was the best
way to zone it. It was his opinion the reason for Council dragging
its feet here, when it knew the need for such use, was that Mr. Pick has
an application on here for commercial zoning.
Mayor Heath stated that he did not feel this had.any basis at all, but
that there was a hpital here and the discussion was becoming quite
strained as to whether you go over another 300-feet, and he did not
feel to take this 300-feet out of that industrial park would ruin and
jeopardize such a proposed use here.
Mr. Jackson stated it would be jeopardized by the fact that the size
of it would be cut and asked if there had been any justification made
to have or grant additional commercial. He felt there was none because
anything read, seen or heard is that the City has enough commercial
• zones already and is over -zoned for such use.
Mayor Heath stated that Mr. Bennett had made his report a few years
ago that there was too much commercial, but the Commission saw fit to
give commercial on Pacific Avenue right in back of his facts. However,
was indicated this had been a potential and Councilman Snyder stated
that he felt this should not be discussed on past actions but what is
"now."
C. Co 8-22-60
Page Twenty -Five
Councilman Barnes stated that at the time Covina made this other
portion M industrial -park type development and zoned it C-1 on the west,
did they (Covina) come to this City and ask ifthat was good zoning,
or ask West Covina°s opinion in any wayo It was his feeling that if
we were doing this because of someone elsebinfluence, we aren't using
good judgment in coming south of San Bernardino Road.
However, Mr. Jackson indicated that the Commission had discussed with
them (Covina) previously relative to manufacturing in that area and.
had a meeting with them initiated at their request and that a good
working relationship had now been established here which did not even
exist at that time when the previous zoning was made and what the City
is always looking for is the highest and best use and is compatible
and doesn't cause a hardship.
Mayor Heath stated that the Commission had voted this be R-3 all
the way to the street, and it was una4mous with them, and then there
was a slight change made for 120-feet 6f commercial and asked if the
interpretation now rather than 120®feet of commercial that this all go
to manufacturing in there. Mr. Jackson replied "definitely.".
Mayor Heath questioned as to whether the Commission was still in
agreement with R-3 in there, and Mr. Jackson indicated, "not at this
time as the consensus was, after making a study, no recommendation of
R-3
Councilman Towner indicated that it is knocn what is needed, and what is
best for the City, and that this is even a higher use for property
owners, and he didn't understand how a particular individual could
stand in the way of good judgment for the City, and that anyone that
speculates takes his chances.
Councilman Barnes stated he did not feel this was true, but he did
feel this is as important as the South Hills area, and that we should
protect the residences.
Councilman Brown stated that the -application was before the City for
5 months, that there were committments on the part of the applicant
and that he did not think it was fair to reverse ourselves.
Councilman Towner asked if it was considered that these reasons were
more important than a Commission study, and Councilman Brown stated
the study is good, but it is late and that with out M-1 it is
impossible to get anyone to build on it and that if M-1 zone had come
along with this, all right, but now you put this on there, revise the
M zoning and cause delay after the application has been in so long a
time.
Councilman Towner stated that he felt the delay that was bothering
was the delay to Pick and Councilman Brown requested that personalities
be left out of it, but Councilman Towner stated that Councilman Brown
had brought that factor into it.
Councilman Snyder felt that Pick should be appraised of this zoning
and be given the opportunity to state objections or approval, but that
. if he wasn't satisfied with it, there should still be strong consideration
about throwing away M zoning that the City needs.
Mayor Heath indicated there should be a comprise here to permit the R-3
and let the rest go manufacturing, and he still felt the R-3 would act
as a good buffer to the hospital use.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried,
that the Planning Commission be directed to draft recommendations
for an Industrial -Park Zoning Ordinance.
0
C o C e 8-22-60
Page Twenty -Six
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried,
that the City Council commends the Planning Department, Planning
Commission and the Chamber of Commerce, with the City of Covina, and
the County of Los Angeles for their coordinated study of San Bernardino
Road, and that their report be received and filed.
COUNTY AMENDMENT NO, 427 This is a Regional Planning Commission
Amendment of the Plan of .Streets and
Highways, and it was the recommendation
of the Planning Commission of this City to endorse it.
No objections were forthcoming from Councils
RECREATION AND PARKS
RESOLUTION NO. 1916
Acquisition of Municipal
Improvements
ADOPTED
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE.
CITY OF:WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
NECESSITY DEMAND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS AND MAKING FINDINGS
RELATING THEREgU. "
Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of
the body of the resolution.
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., 1916.
INTRODUCTION
The City Clerk presented: .
An Ordinance for
"An ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
notice of special
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA ORDERING,
election
CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE
OF A SPECIAL'ELECTION.TO BE HELD.IN THE
CITY OF WEST-COVINA ON THE 8TH DAY OF
NOVEMBER, 1960 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING
TO THIS QUALIFIED VOTERS. OF SAID CITY A
PROPOSITION TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
BY SAID CITY FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVE-
MENTS AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH
.STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
SAID DATE,"
Motion by Councilman
Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried,
that further reading
of the body of the ordinance be waived.
Motion by Councilman
Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner,.and carried,
that the ordinance be
introduced and given its first reading,
C.C., 8-22-60
RESOLUTION NO. 1917
Consolidation of bond
election with general
. election
ADOPTED
Page Twenty -Seven
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA REQUESTING
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD
NOVEMBER 8, 1960.WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE.
Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of
the body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown that said
resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:.
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absents. None
Said resolution was given No. 1917.
RESOLUTION NO. 1918 The City Clerk presented:
Authorization to file "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
a City measure CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING
ADOPTED CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN
ARGUMENT FOR A CITY MEASURE."
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,Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 1918.
(Authorization given to Mayor and Mayor Pro-tem and Council representa-
tive to the Recreation and Parks Commission to write the argument for
the measure.(.,
GENERAL MATTERS
ORAL
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS From Mr. Frank G. Bonelli thanking the City
for their resolution presented to him at the
recent dinner.
CITY MANAGERS REPORTS
GRAND AVENUE..AGREEMENT City Manager outlined contract proxisions
• F.A..S. PROJECT 860A and submitted summary copies to City Council
AUTHORIZATION TO
EXECUTE Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by
Councilman Brown, and carried that the
Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to
execute the agreement.
C. C. 8-22-60 Page Twenty -Eight
PARTICIPATION OF SCHOOL City Manager Aiassa stated this matter has
DISTRICT RELATIVE TO been reviewed and written communications
STREET LIGHTS IN THEIR had been received showing the attitude of
AREAS the schools relative to this problem. A
HELD OVER summary of the report had been prepared and
presented tortherCity
bringing this matter up -to -dace on all the
items discussed in this matter, which is a concise statement indicating
that the schools do not want to financially participate in the lighting
program.
It was indicated to them there would be no action on their request,
but that they would be notified that this action would be held over to the
meeting of September 12th so that a representative can appear from the
districts to present their case.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried,
that this matter be held over to the next regular meeting and the
proper parties notified so as to be present at that time to present
their case.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by
AGREEMENT Councilman Towner that the Mayor and City
AUTHORIZATION TO Clerk be authorized to sign the Chamber
EXECUTE of Commerce Agreement for the year 1960-1961,
starting July 1, 1960 and ending July 1, 1961.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown,
Noes: None
Absent: None
P.U.C. BUS RATE CHANGES
ITEM TABLED
PERSONNEL
Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
HeaVirig date set for August 24, 1960 at
10 A. M.
FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendation for Captain Guerin to
servo3a another year with the City as
Fire Prevention Officer, Required physical
examination was done with the report of Captain Guerin being in
excellent physical condition.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried,
that Captain Guerin be permitted to serve another year with the City of
West Covina as Fire Prevention Officer.
PERSONNEL* SECRETARY ILEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR 60.DAYS
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried,
that the recommendation of the City Manager for a 60 day leave of absence
for the Personnel Secretary be approved.
0
C. C. 8-22-60 Page Twenty -Nine
CARPOOL Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by
Councilman Barnes, and carried, that the
City Manager be authorized to proceed with
this study to contact various automobile}
dealers and make recommendations to Council on possible three proposals
on use of standard Fords and Chevrolets, plus Valient, Falcon, and
Corvair.
RESOLUTION NO. 1919 The City Manager presented:
Council Expenses "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA`FINDING THAT
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL INCUR
CERTAIN MONTHLY EXPENSE BY THEIR SAID
POSITION AND METHOD OF THEIR REIMBURSE---
MENTS, " . --
Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of
the body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown that said
resolution be adopted and be effective August 1, 1960. Motion passed
on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilman Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 1919.
GLENDORA BRIDGE CONTRACT Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by
WITH THE CALIFORNIA.STATE Councilman Towner, and carried that this
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS matter be directed to be submitted to the
City Attorney to prepare a resolution for
the next regular meeting and to review the
contract.
TREASURERS REPORT
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded
by
July, 1960
Councilman Snyder, and carried, that
the
Treasurers Report for July, 1960 be
accepted and filed for the record.
CONTRACT WITH
City Manager reported that a copy of
the
O'MELVENIY AND MEYER
contract was given to the City Council,
AUTHORIZATION
and action would be necessary before
we
TO EXECUTE
undertake Bond Issues.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded
by
Councilman Towner that authorization
be
given to the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the contract.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilman Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
C. C. 8-22-60
Page Thirty
PROJECT NO. 103 Negotiations with the La Puente Water
DIRECTIVE TO Company relative to the relocating and
PROCEED installing of new irrigation pipe line as
• part of Sunset (Avenue.) improvements.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried,
that the City Manager be authorized to proceed with the necessary
negotiations.
CLAIM OF DR. L. MOSER, Mom. Request for a refund because it was
RELATIVE TO PRECISE PLAN found a variancewasn°t necessary.
NO. 234
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried,
that this claim of Dr. L.:Moser ....Precise Plan No. 234.... be referred
to the Planning Commission instructing them to make finding and
recommendation.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE Registration fee is $35.00, attendance for
JUNIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER four days, with mileage to be paid amounting
TO ATTEND TRAINING SCHOOL. to approximately $28.00 which would give a
AT U.C.L.A. total of about $63.00.
APPROVED
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown that the
Junior Traffic Engineer, Weston Pringle, be authorized to the attend the
Traffic Training School Program at U.C.L.A.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilman Brown,'Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
ADVERTISEMENT ON This was for advertisement on the back
JACKETS OF MUSTANG of the jackets worn indicating City of
PONY LEAGUE PLAYERS West Coxina; California.
AT WASHINGTON, PA.
.Motion by Councilman Brown,
seconded by Councilman Barnes, that an
expenditure up to $300.00 be allowed relative to the advertising of
the City through the Pony League Team that is representing us at
Washington, Pennsylvania.
Motion -passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown,
Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
EMPLOYEES HEALTH INSURANCE
To be discussed in personnel study session.
PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE
Couneili.ito review the existing and proposed
AMENDMENT.
amendments with comments, and they will be
referred directly to Planning Department
for the Planning Commission.
U.S. CONFERENCE OF
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by
MAYORS OF MUNICIPAL
Councilman Towner and carried that the
BONDS oN
Mayor and City Manager ft prepare letters
to Congressmen to remove this threat to the
bond market by requesting certain correction.
C. C. 8-22-60 Page Thirty -One
ADMINISTRATION REVIEW Report submitted.
BOARD Held for study.
40 VENDING MACHINES Report submitted.
Held for study.
FIFTY - TRIPLE -A SAFETY Report made and advise that the City will
STICKERS participate.
CITY OF WEST COVINA To.-.beispread in full upon the Minutes
ASSESSED VALUATION
FOR 1960-61
Tax District Tax District
#1 #2 Total
Secured:
Land
19,645,140.00
237,920.00
19$883,060.00
Improvements
51,697,660.00
18,100.00
51,715,760.00
Personal Property
2,263,570.00
2,450.00
2,266,020.00
Exemptions
(7,523,710.00)
-0-
(7,523,710.00)
Total Secured
66,082,660.00
258,470.00
_66,341,130.00-
Public Utilities
3,381,810.00
4,630.00
3,386,440.00
Unsecured:
Improvements
1,306,840.00
-0-
1,306,840.00
Personal Property
z5,326,650.00
960.00
5,327,610.00
Exemptions
( 13,350.00)
-0-
(13,350.00)
Total Unsecured
-6p6208140000
960.00
6,621,100.00
Total Assessed Valuation
76,084,610.00
264,060.00
76,348,670.00
WALNUT CREEIK PARKWAY
Report made and
placed on
file.
PROJECT
M.T.A. REPORT
To be acknowledged
with expression of
interest in continuing
to
be informed.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried,
that the Planning Commission study the route and make comments relative
to it.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CITY Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by
AT HEARING OF AUGUST 25, 1960 Councilman Barnes, and carried, that
RELATIVE TO INCORPORATION the Mayor appear at this hearing and be
OF COVINA HIGHLANDS . authorized to speak on behalf of the City.
• TAt
"TORNEY
ORDINANCE.NO. AMENDING CODE AFFECTING REGULATIONS IN.R-P
ZONES PERTAINING TOINIGHT OF BUILDINGS
(PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 34) (Introduction)
I j
ORDINANCE NO. MODIFYING CERTAIN REGULATIONS PERTAINING
TO HEIGHT LIMITATION OF BUILDINGS IN R-A and
R-3 ZONE. (PROPOSED AMEND. NO. 40)
(Introduction)
Above items deleted from Agenda.
C,d. C . 8-22-60
Page Thirty -Two
ORDINANCE NO. 674 The City Clerk Presented:
SECOND READING "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
An ordinance rezoning CITY OF WEST COVINA REZONING CERTAIN
certain premises PREMISES (Pick)
ADOPTED
A Motion by Councilman Brown to adopt failed for lack of second.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder that the
ordinance be held over until next regular meeting.
Mayor Heath: Why?
Councilman Towner: To get the Planning. Commission to do a
preliminary study on I-P zoning and to give
Pick an opportunity to see the studies made,
and if he desires to express his ideas, we
can get the benefit of that too.
Mayor Heath: If he goes along, doesn't he have to file all
over again?
Councilman Brown: Yes
Motion failed on roll call as follows.:.
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Snyder
Noes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Absent: None
Councilman Towner: I think the over-riding concern of members
of Council is Pick's time delay rather than
the best use of the property.
Mayor Heath: Not necessarily, as pointed out it needs a
buffer between the hospital and manufacturing.
Councilman Snyder: You don't know that Pick wouldn't be more
happy with all M zoning.
Councilman Brown: If he.wants it he can change the zoning
and refile.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that further
reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion passed on roll
call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: Councilmen Towner, Snyder
Absents None
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that the
ordinance be given its second and final reading and adopted. Motion
passed on full call as follows.-.
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: Councilmen Towner, Snyder
Absent: None
Said ordinance was given No. 674.
0
C. C. 8-22-60
Page Thirty -Three
RESOLUTION NO. 1920 The City Clerk presented:
Fixing rates of taxes "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
and levying taxes for CITY OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE RATES OF
1960 TAXES AND LEVYING TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ADOPTED BEGINNING JULY 1, 1960." 1
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 roil call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 1920.
RESOLUTION NO. 1921 The City Clerk presented:.
Fixing the amount of "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
money necessary to CITY OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE AMOUNT OF
be raised by taxation MONEY NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
for 1960. FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING
"'J�� AIIQPTED) July 1, 1960."
Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown that said
resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 1921.
RESOLUTION NO. 1922 The City Clerk presented:
Denying unclassified "A RESOLUTION: OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE
use permit and precise CITY OF WEST COVINA DENYING A REQUEST FOR
Plan AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT AND. DENYING A
ADOPTED PRECISE PLAN." (Frank J. Ruppert).
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: None
Councilman Barnes abstaining from the vote.
Said resolution was given No. 1922.
COMMENTS OF MRS. VAN DAME
We need a noiseless switch on this air conditioning.
How come sidewalks now aren't mandatory in front of schools?
Council indicated they were.
Why did you agree to have the Turkey Bar-B-Que at Merced instead of
Cortez Park?
C. C. 8-22-60
Page Thirty -Four
Councilman Browne.
We
didn't have it, the
Teen -Kan -Teen gave
it,
and it was raising
money so it shouldn't
be
in a City park.
Mrs. Van Dame:
Why
was liquor sold at
the Bar-B-Que?.
Councilman Brown:
It
is private property
in a C-1 zone and
to
do so was legal.
Mrs. Van Dame: Regardless, I do not think it should have
been done, and I feel you are all
responsible and should have prohibited it,
as well as the City Manager and Police Department, especially with so
many young people.
Councilman Brown: This wasn't any activity for youth, it was
older people and liquor wasn't for any young
people.
Mrs. Van Dame: It still should not have been permitted.
DEMANDS APPROVED: Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by
Councilman Snyder, that Demands in the
amound of $317,531.29 as shown on Demand
Sheets B-66, C-217 through C-219, be
approved. This to include fund transfers
in the amount of $125,797.73 and funds to
include time deposits in the amount of
$140,000.00.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried,
that the meeting be adjourned at 12t35 A.M. to Monday, August 29, 1960 at
7:30 P.M.
APPROVED p
Mayor
ATTEST:
*' City Clerk
I