Loading...
09-26-1960 - Regular Meeting - Minutes0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA September 26, 1960 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Heath at 7-40 Pa M. in the West Covina City Hallo The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Brown with the invocation given by Councilman Snyder. ROLL CALL Present.- Mayor Heath, Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes Snyder Others Present.- Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk Mr. Harry Co Williams, City Attorney Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Coordinator Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public Service Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 12, 1960 CITY CLERK'S REPORTS Approved as submitted TRACT NO. 22004 Accept Street Improvements (Al Handler) APPROVED PRECISE PLAN NO. 26 Accept Street Improvements (Sylvan Shulman) APPROVED LOCATION.- Northeast corner of Vine and Azusa Avenues, Accept street improvements and authorize the release of General Insurance Company bond No. 410022 in the amount of $28,000.00 LOCATION.- South of Garvey Avenue, west of California Avenue. Accept street improvements installed in connection with first section of Plaza Development. Authorize the release of Continental Casualty Company Bond No. 151-72-79 in the amount of $35,000.00 TRACT NO. 22004 LOCATION.- Northeast corner of Accept Sewer Improvements Vine and Azusa Avenues. (Al Handler) APPROVED Accept sewer improvements and authorize the release of General Insurance Company bond No. 381070 in the amountof° $8,600.00 The City Clerk stated that the Inspector's Final Report had been received on the first item, and the bond had been accepted under -Council Resolution No. 1858; that the Inspector's Final Report had been received on the sewer improvements in Tract No. 22004, and the bond had been accepted under Council Resolution No. 1496. Relative to the street improvements in Precise Plan No. 26, the sanitation Facilities on that particular plan had been accepted in May, 1960, and aside from.the amount of $35,000.00 as noted on the Agenda item, Ca C. 9-26®60 Page Two TRACT NO, 22604 m continued the City is retaining a bond in the amount of $6,500.00 for certain installations to be completed in that area. The recommendation is to accept the improvements indicated and to release the bonds. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried that the street and sewer improvements, as indicated on the Agenda, be accepted and authorization be given for the release of the bonds as indicated. PROJECT NO. C-130 LOCATION.- City Corporation Yard Accept Improvements at 825 So Sunset Avenue, (City Corporation Yard - Concrete Slabs) Accept improvements (concrete APPROVED slabs for wash area and service shop) and authorize payment in the amount of $2, 624 a 31 subject to Notice of Completion procedure, The City Clerk stated that the record should show that the Inspector's Final Report had been received, and that the Notice of Completion had been signed by City Manager Aiassa and recorded with the County Recorder. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that improvements be accepted in Project No. C-130 and authorization given for payment in the amount of $2,6240310 PROJECT NO, C-133 LOCATION.- Walnut Creek Parkway Approve Plans and Specifications from California Street to 714-35 for street improvements westerly. APPROVED Approve plans and specifications and authorize City Engineer to call for bids Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that the Plans and Specifications for street improvements in Project No, C-133 be approved and authorization given for the City Engineer to call for bids PROJECT NO. C-134 LOCATION.- Walnut Creek Parkway Approve plans and spec- from Vincent Avenue to 500 feet ifications for street westerly. improvements; authorize call for bids and acceptance Approve plans and specifications of deposit monies and authorize City Engineer to APPROVED call for bids. City Manager Aiassa.- This is a matter of participation of property owners, and a break- down report was presented to Council on September 23, 1960. The cost on this is $12,923o000 We would request that Council include in their approval of this item that the City Engineer be authorized to receive monies on deposit from the property owners participating. C. Co 9-26-6o PROJECT NO. C-134 - continued Page Three Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that the Plans and Specifications for street improvements -- in Project No. C-134 be approved; that the City Engineer be author- ized to call for bids, and that the City Engineer be authorized to receive monies on deposit from those participating. PROJECT NO. C-126 LOCATION.- Badillo Street, west of Approve Plans and Orange Avenue. Specifications (Badillo Street) For construction of street improve - APPROVED ments in Badillo Street, west of Orange Avenue, and. authorize the City Engineer to negotiate contract with E. A. Irish Construction Co, The City Manager indicated this work involves the amount of $600000> Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that the plans and specifications in Project No. C-126 be approved and authorization given for the City Engineer to negotiate a contract with the E. A. Irish Construction Company, In answer to a question put bA ouCouC n_cilman Brown, City Manager Aiassa indicated that in relation to Project No. C-126, the monies indicated would be in participation of that which pertains to the City, and Mr. Dosh indicated that the County will participate relative to their area, RESOLUTION NO, 1937 The City Clerk presented.- Approving Final Map "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL of Tract No. 25403 OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA (Mason To Noice) APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP ADOPTED OF TRACT NO. 25403; ACCEPTING DED- ICATION THEREIN OFFERED AND ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SURETY BOND TO SECURE SAME," LOCATION.- North side of Cameron Avenue, west of Citrus Street. Approving final map and acre ting General Insurance Company Bond No. 437471 in the amount of M,500,00, Area District •III - 1.7 Acres - 4 Lots The City Clerk indicated that the tentative map had been approved in December, 1959, and there were no changes in the final map. Mayor Heath.- Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution, Is Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, that said resolution be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows.- Ayes.- Councilman Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes.- None Absents None Said resolution was given No. 19370 0 Co Co 9-26-60 RESOLUTION NO. 1938 Approving Final Map of Metes and Bounds Sub- division No. 135-167 (Ruskin F. Gardner) ADOPTED Page Four The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF METES AND BOUNDS NO. 135-167 AND ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND A SURETY BOND TO SECURE SAME," LOCATION: Southwest corner of Vine Avenue and Citrus Street. No bond, improvements secured with City Project No. C-120, Area District III - 1.06 Acres - 2 Lots The City Clerk indicated that the tentative map had been approved by the Council in May, 1960, and there were no changes in the final map, Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 1938, RESOLUTION NO. 1939 Opening Future Street Easement - Metes and Bounds Subdivision No, 135-11 (Barranca Street) ADOPTED The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,ACCEPTING FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT HERETO- FORE GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO SAID CITY." LOCATION: East side of Barranca Street, south of Sunset Hill Drive. Open future street easement 10 feet wide - recorded in Book 32081, Page 57. 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.9,Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 19390 RESOLUTION NO. 1940 The City Clerk presented: Quitclaim Deed - Precise "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Plan Noo_128 OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AUTHOR - (Jack I. Dubrove) IZING THE EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM ADOPTED DEED." LOCATION'. Northwest corner of California Avenue and Walnut Creek Parkway, C. C. 9-26-6o Page Five RESOLUTION NO. 1940 - continued Deed relative to a portion of the northwest corner of California Avenue and Walnut Creek Parkway, not needed for street and highway purposes, to Jack I. Dubrove. Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes.- Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 1940. RELEASE OF $1,000.00 Principal: California Sewer EXCAVATION BOND Construction Company. APPROVED Authorize release of Indemnity Insurance Company of North America Bond No. M 22 19 31, in the amount of $1,000.00. All obligations guaranteed by this bond have been satisfactorily fulfilled. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that authorization be given for the release of Indemnity Insurance Company of North America Bond No. M 22 19 31 in the amount of $1,000.00 to the Principal, California Sewer Construction Company. SCHEDULED MATTERS PROJECT NO.,SS-6a LOCATION: 825 S. Sunset Avenue. Sanitary Sewers at City Corporation Yard Review of bids received September BIDS REJECTED 22, 1960; City Engineer's Report; AUTHORIZATION TO award of contract. OBTAIN INFORMAL BIDS It was indicated in the report that at 10:00 a. m. on Thursday, September 22, 1960, the bids were opened in the office of the City Clerk and were tabulated as follows: Chorak Construction Company $1,668.09 M. C. Nottingham Company 1,688.52 L. D. & M Construction Company 1,995.90 ,City Engineer's estimate 1,393.40 It was stated in the report that the low bid was 19.71% above the City Engineer's estimate, and the average bid was 28.04% above the estimate. It was indicated that at this time of the year construction projects are in full swing, and there is very little competition in bidding new projects, borne out by previous experience as stated in the report, and that the Street Maintenance Supervisor stated that it is not of an immediate necessity to install the sewer for the Cor- poration Yard, as, at the moment, it would only serve the car wash area, and this area could be drained off onto adjacent grounds. C. C. 9-26®60 Page Six PROJECT NO. SSm6a o continued It was, therefore, recommended that all bids be rejected for this project, and that the City Engineer be authorized to again call for • bids on an informal basis on or about the middle of December, 1960, in that by that time many construction projects will be completed and more contractors will be available to bid this project, providing more competition and lowering of over all bids. Councilman Brown., According to the information on the report received from the City department heads, it is recommended this contract be held off, as it went over the estimate. The one thing that bothers me is that we put in the Wash Rack that was to hook onto the sewer, and now it is being said we do not need it, as the wash area could be flushed out into the yard. Would we let a private business do this? Councilman Towner., Councilman Brown-, Mayor Heath-, Mr. Dosh-, City Manager Aiassa-, would recommend that ized to proceed on an within the estimate. Councilman Brown. - Mr. Dosh-, I would assume that the draining off into the yard is a temporary adjustment until the sewers are in. They intend not to award the con- tract at this time, What is the possible length of time of this proposal? Three months. This is under the amount of $2500.00, and we are' authorized to call for informal bids up to that amount. I the bids be rejected and the City Manager author - informal bid basis to see if this can come much more convenient to do it on Mayor Heath-, Mr. Dosh., That's fine, but we should not use the wash rack until it is hooked up and meets all requirements that would be required of individuals to do this. However, we are presently washing the vehicles on bare ground. We could stay off the slab, but it is the slab since we have it. Drainage, at present, is on the ground with or without the slab? Yes, but it is more channelizedo City Manager Aiassa., We want the sewer contract and have the slab to clean up the area. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried unanimously that all bids received be rejected for Project No. SSm6a and that the City Manager be authorized to again call for bids on this project on an informal basis. C, Co 9-26-6o HF:ARTNMq ZONE CHANGE NO. 167 (Jerry Co Nichols) APPROVED AS STIPULATED Page Seven LOCATION-. On the north side of Garvey Avenue, between Hillhaven Drive and Fairway Lane. REQUEST-. To reclassify from Zone R-1 to Zone R-3bo Denied by Planning Commission on September 7, 1960, Resolution No. 9250 Appealed by the applicant on September 13, 1960. Maps were presented and Resolution No. 925 was read. The City Clerk stated that the record should show that 25 notices were sent to those living in the area, and that Notice of Hearing was published in the West Covina Tribune on September 15, 1960o Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated that Council was operating under the West Covina Municipal Code relative to time for presentation of testimony and that all those desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. IN FAVOR Mr. Oo E. Cunningham I have been requested by the appli- 1723 Wilshire Blvd. cant to undertake the presentation Los Angeles of this case before you this even- ing, because at the time of the initial hearing before the Planning Commission, there wasn't a precise plan presented, or anything resembling one, and he thought that perhaps someone should look at his zoning request and to prepare such a plan. I should like to address some of my remarks to the reasons for dis- approval as stated by the Planning Commission, We will admit that the surrounding property is zoned as indicated, and we think that perhaps the Commission and Council denial of a previous request for a drive -irk movie at this site would constitute spot zoning, as such, too. We do not believe, however, that this is particularly approp- riate to this particular case before you, There was, at that prev- ious time, objection by the property owners, but tonight I believe you have none, nor do I believe were there any at the Commission hearing. It was indicated it was not desirable to permit high density devel- opment on Grand Avenue. However, this is a proposed major north - south street a hundred feet wide and goes under the freeway. In my opinion, that is a good argument for this as a good place for high density use with easy access to the service road and a major 100-foot street, which will be a major traffic carrying street. There has been indicated the question of whether this zone classi- fication should be altered in that the applicant presented nothing to the effect of need in the City for this zone change here, but in paragraph five it is indicated that since the Bennett report, six- teen zone changes gave additional R-3 property. Most of them were in conformance with your plan in 1958. If you had sixteen changes for zone R-3 from 1958 to 1960, in my opinion you have a designated need for such use, and I do not think that seventeen will tip the balance of R-3 properties in the City. The proposal differs from R-3 on Fairway Avenue. This property does not abut directly to the freeway, although 37 feet of frontage is on the service road and abuts Grand Avenue and the Wash. We believe this is the best use of the land under the same conditions applicable across the street, lacking the adjacency of C-2 zoning, and is good for R-3 zoning. C. C..9-26-6o Page Eight ZONE CHANGE NO, 167 - continued Mr. 0. E. Cunningham - continued • It was stated that relative to the Regional Planning Commission, that the land to the east is to be held to single family. We have a small amendment to this application, and make the proposal of laying in an R-1 buffer strip to the east side of this property to protect the County zoning to the east and so as not to commit them to what will be placed on this property. It was indicated relative to this being a peninsula into the R-1 developed property that if you look at the zoning map, this is true, but there are topography features relative to this property which nullify that objection. It was indicated there were applications before the RPC where proper- ties to the east were asking for larger lot sizes, which would indi- cate a desire for lower density use. If that is true, you might restore the density by granting R-31 but you would not increase it to those properties on the east, and it is something not to be held against this property. It was stated that this could be adequately and easily developed into a single family zoning subdivision. That is a matter of opinion of the Planning Director and the Commission. I think it is undoubtedly true a subdivision could be laid out and streets placed on the property to make an R-1 subdivision] but that can be done on any land in the City that you can develop into single family if desired. This map presented proposes not necessarily a precise plan, but shows one Way to have a pattern set into it so you would have tiers of lots to back up to anything in question. The 120-foot strip would not change, it would be R-1 zoning to buffer. It is possible you may wish only one entry road in from Grand Avenue into this acreage, and if that would be true, it is relatively simple to have a service road along Grand or a loop, so there would be only one entrance from Grand Avenue into the area. There is a Wash to the north. The subdivision(s) north of that... the streets do not come through into the subject property, they result in a cul-de-sac north of the Wash. On the south of the property, we have outlined the approximate elevations and the top- ography of the heavily wooded slope that separates this property from Hillhaven Drive. The area north of Hillhaven is deep and owned by various property owners, and I understood the backs of these lots might be sold off and bought for home use on hillside, but they are not subdividing on a steep slope and giving up their privacy ..... I do not think that they will, I think you have a type development here that is better in R-3 than in R-1 property. There is a great amount of freeway noise here which is not true on Hillhaven. You are down close to the freeway on a common elevation down to the freeway, and because of the buffer being offered, and those existing naturally, this is better for R-3 than any parcel in any other direction, I understood the County was to have a settling basin on the north side of the. Wash, and if so, that would further act to buffer this particular R-3 proposal from anything else. There is a very heavily wooded area behind the Hillhaven homes. Commissioner Launer stated as follows, and I quote, "With the proper planning, I feel that a very good job can be done on either R-1 or R-3 development," C. C. 9-26-60 Page Nine ZONE CHANGE NO. 167 - continued Mr. 0. E. Cunningham - continued Commissioner Hall stated, and I quote, "I feel that when you develop an R-3 area and you have a method of control for keeping it in that particular area, you should do it." When Mr. Eisner made the Covina plan, he went so far as to put hollow circles on both sides of Grand Avenue in this location, and that pro- poses a neighborhood center... commercial. What we are asking is substantially less than a responsible planning consultant recommended in his plan of Covina. I think, personally, that we do not need another shopping center at that particular location. I would summarize this on this basis. You know what tax advantages there are to the City in a change from R-1 to R-3. It is not a reason to re -zone, per se, but on the other hand, it does have bearing because a proper tax base is the responsibility of the department of planning and goes hand -in -hand with use of land. This use here would help support West Covina's commercial zones. Possibly the City is over zoned with commercial, and this would possibly help to alleviate a less dense zoning that County resi- dents to the east possibly want. We won't hold 100% to this precise plan, but we are convinced this can be worked out for the benefit of the applicant and the City. Mr. J. Nichols In the statement of the Commission 253 S. Bandy Avenue resolution, it referred to a com- West Covina prehensive plan, and I would state and reiterate that this piece of land when drawn into the City was not under that study for the comprehensive plan. This property was originally annexed to the City in an attempt to obtain a drive-in theater by a previous owner, but the only way it could come in was relative to the highest R-1 in the City. This was zoned when annexed, but not as a part of the comprehensive plan. Most of the freeway land came in as R-3, and I am sure this would have been included in that zoning if the comprehensive plan had existed at the time this came in. Mrs. C. M. Elliott I am not sure whether I am in 19851 E. Oak Canyon Road favor o-r against this, but we have the property of 15 acres on Oak Canyon Road and own half of that canyon property road just mentioned relative to wooded area. We feel people are certainly entitled to get use of their property, but there is now the matter of an R-1 buffer strip. I looked at the map in the Engineering Department on the Grand Avenue extension, and unless there has been some change in the last two or three months there was no access provided going north on Grand Avenue north of the freeway. You can come'off of it going onto Garvey, but you can't go north on it. Mr. Dosh: There is just a grade separation at this time, no interchange. Mayor Heath: You could come off the freeway and go north? Mr. Dosh: I do not think so. C. C. 9-26-6o Page Ten ZONE CHANGE NO. 167 - continued Mrs. Elliott: I wonder if on this property, would he put access onto that is would The only objection we would have is any road opening onto Oak Canyon Road, because that is difficult to handle anyway, because we have to clean it up and do the best we can. If you open it up to a subdivision or apart- ments, we just do not know what would happen. There is a fire hazard and we have a swimming pool that the County will tap into for water in case of fire, but it would be difficult to police that road. In speaking of the buffer strip, I wouldn't know whether they would leave it open or wall it there. Councilman Snyder-. Is Oak Canyon Road a private road? Mrs. Elliott-. Yes, privately owned. We own half of it, We have right-of-way over the Anderson property, and then we own half of it to' -the Seminary. What assurance would we have that that buffer they recommend there would be enclosed so people wouldn't go right over it (Oak Canyon Road) because they do now, Mr. Cunningham-. In regard to the question about the buffer we are proposing, since the property is now zoned R-1, what we are indicating is that the east 120-feet of the parcel in question remain in the R-1 zone and that becomes the buffer between R-3 on the majority of the property and Oak Canyon Road. This doesn't change the status of the road and this owner receives no rights onto that road into R-1, it is simply a buffer in case -of the event of future dedication of Oak Canyon Road. The City would have 65 x 120 foot lots facing on this road, and until something else is done it would remain as it is now. Mrs. Elliott-. Mayor Heath-. Mr. Cunningham-. apartment house buildings on the them and the R-1 area proposed to Councilman Barnes.- 0 Mr. Cunningham-. Mrs. Elliott-. If you have the depth of 120 feet how would you separate that? Would you wall your property through there? I believe the question here is, do you plan on putting any kind of block wall along the easterly side of the R-1 property? We would possibly not propose a solid block wall right down the road. I think probably that the balance would have a wall between be left Are .ry.ou proposing that this.. is R-1 Facing the private road? Yes. Does that R-1 have right-of-way on that road? Mr. Cunningham-. No. 40 is Co C. 9-26-6o ZONE CHANGE NO. 167 - continued Page Eleven Mr. Nichols: If the property were zoned R-3 to the private road, we would stip- ulate to the agreement to build a 6-foot wall if that would relieve Council's mind and also, as far as Mrs. Elliott is concerned, it would preclude what is being talked about. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Towner: The application, as I understand it, is for R-3bo What does that include? Mr. Joseph: The application is for R-3, not R-3bo The R-3b would be in relation to the development standards to be imposed on the property. We have no R-3b zone as such, but•this would be the development standards of R-3 and indicate 25 units per acre. Councilman Towner: If this is rezoned to R-3, part of the recommendations to be applied would be to go to the R-3b restrictions? Mr. Joseph: yes, and this consideration would come up at the time of the present- ation of the precise plan. Councilman Towner: As I understand it, then, if the property does get rezoned, we will still retain control of it by the use of the precise plan. Is the indication that Grand Avenue is to be a 100-foot right-of- way correct? Mr. Dosh: Yes. Councilman Towner: As I recall, at the Commission hearing, there was a question of elevations. Is it possible to get egress and ingress to this property from Grand Avenue? Mr. Dosh.: Yes. It would take some slight fill, but they could get it in, Mr. Dosh explained the grading on this matter. Councilman Towner: Then Grand Avenue is 6 or 7-feet above the existing elevation of this property? Mr. Dosh: That is correct. Councilman Towner: There was reference made in the Planning Commission remarks to the pending application before the RPC regarding rezoning to larger lot sizes. Where is that located? Mr, Joseph: It is quite a bit further to the east and little to the north. E of C. C. 9-26-6o ZONE CHANGE NO. 167 - continued Councilman Towner: Councilman Barnes: to be quite a bit to the east, on Mr. Joseph: Councilman Snyder: Mr. Dosh: Councilman Barnes: Page Twelve It would seem that is considerable distance away from this, then. How much of the area on the east side of this proposed R-3 is sloped, hilly area? There seemed the slope. This property is fairly level all the way through. Where is the proposed settling basin? To the west of Grand Avenue, off of Grand Avenue. The application: is for'R-3: but without the precise plan, perhaps we shouldn:P t(., do : this. Councilman Brown: There was mention made of the 16 zone changes for R-3, but I believe many of these were the firming up of potentially zoned R-3, whereas the statement would lead one to believe that these were changes to R-3 from another type of zoning. Mr. Dosh: Councilman Towner: you do the zoning. Evidently, we plan on it at any time. There were quite a few potential R-38s that were firmed up. I would agree that a precise plan is needed, but I'do not think you necessarily need it at the time can retain control here by a precise To me, I think the arguments presented by Mr. Cunningham were good. This property appears to be isolated, and further isolated by the proposed R-1 buffer. We have had sad experiences with the problem of subdividing into single family homes on major highways and, per- sonally, I think the best way to handle it is by less restrictive type of zoning, such as apartment house use. With Grand Avenue, a 50-foot bluff, and the Wash on three sides of this, you have an isolated piece of property, and you can place your single family buffer as indicated, which is a good idea and should be adhered to, I think, then, we would have a very suitable apartment house location. Councilman Brown: I think this property is very definitely not suitable for R-1. You have, in my opinion, two reasons why it is not. Grand Avenue will vary from two to eight feet higher than this. To put R-1 on a slope such as this would have to be, I do not think is good R-1, and I would agree that having R-1 back up to major highways has been detrimental to the City, and not only to ours, but to others, too. I would be in favor of R-3. As to the matter of Oak Canyon Road, this can be cleared up when the R-1 buffer is laid out, and you can still bring it out to Grand Avenue. C. C. 9-26-6o Page Thirteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 167 - continued Councilman Barnes: On their map, they show R-1 facing • onto Mrs. Elliott's private road. I do not think this is good. It should be contained within its own subdivision. The R-1 should face to itself and -back up, so as not to face somebody else's road, I think the R-1 buffer to the east is a very good point, and I think that possibly there should be provisions put in so that these hill- side lots can develop at some later date, because if we don't, at some time or other, those people are going to come in and want to develop beautiful hillside lots, and if this area is developed prop- erly, there could be beautiful homes developed here even though it is hilly.... .we have other areas in the City hillier than this. Councilman Snyder: I also feel, regarding a precise plan, particularly happy to make a decision on this, because in many cases we become confused or bowled over by a precise plan, and here we can make a clear-cut decision without a beautiful precise plan. However, I am at a loss to understand how the Commission came to their decision. When they came to this decision, perhaps they felt they were on shaky ground, as they listed ten arguments, and I feel that particularly argument number two has no particular reference to this particular zoning problem. I do not know how you can find a more isolated spot for R-3 for the reasons indicated, such as the Wash, the bluff, and the major avenue. It looks like a good location for an R-3, but I, too, like the buffer of R-1. Mayor Heath: clearly state the reasons, and if mission should take another look Councilman Brown: City Attorney Williams: Councilman Brown: I think everything has been said on this matter that can be said, and if this is denied, we should it is approved, perhaps the Com- at it. I do not think we can approve this, we have to refer it back to the Commission, On 'a zone change, you can approve it, because they would simply be considering the same things they have already considered. However, there may be different evidence presented because of the proposal of the buffering.of R-1. City Attorney Williams: That is up to you to determine. The answer is, if the evidence is substantially new evidence and you reach a different conclusion, then refer it back, but whether you consider this substantially new evidence is up to you. ek, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, that Zone Change No. 167 be granted for R-3 zoning, excluding the easterly 120-feet of the property along Oak Canyon Road, which is a private road. C. C. 9-26-6o Page Fourteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 167 - continued Councilman Towner-. I think Mr. Joseph had a valid point, which is if we leave the 120-feet of R-1 on the east, you may never be able to get access and suggested adding 30 feet more to that to provide for a half street. However, it was my thought that the access problem is one that can be solved at the time of considering the precise plan,and unless they show access on the precise plan, we could disapprove any precise plan. Mayor Heath-. Would there be any objection to making this 150 feet? Councilman Brown-. If they control traffic within their own subdivision, making R-1 back up to this private street, you would be taking 30 feet off of them and would have to have another hearing. You can develop R-3 as R-1, but can't develop R-1 as R-3. Mayors Heath-. They could have access to this through the development of Grand Avenue. Councilman Towner-. Another point is that it is our usual theory to back up R-1 to R-3, and with a single tier of R-1 there you might have difficulty if they can't get access to R-1 to the east. You might have a second tier of R-1 to half street and back up to the R-3. Councilman Brown-. Councilman Towner-. It could develop within its own development, and I can't see anything wrong with it. In any event, these are problems that can be solved at the time of the precise plan. Motion passed on roll call as follows. - Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes-. None Absent-. None Mayor Heath called a recess. Council reconvened at 9-.20 P. M. Mayor Heath-. We have people present who have ,questions and concern regarding property on Azusa Avenue, known as the LaBerge property. The questions have been to the extent of "can this case be re -opened?" and "can we review the facts before the Council tonight, summarizing the information that was given in the hearing?" Questions to this effect. The Council has heard all the evidence that was to be presented in the public hearing. They are aware of these facts and have studied them in making their final decision, and to review them again from the floor would be unnecessary. As to the re -opening of the hearing, I would like to have the City Attorney's opinion on this if there is any new evidence that might have a decided bearing on this zoning and to whether the action on this matter could be held up. C� J 0 C. Co 9-26-6o Page Fifteen City Attorney Williams-. If I understand what you are saying now, if it were shown to you that there were material facts not previously present, and if done, it would have a direct bearing on the decision in the case, you could, I think, re -open the matter. But in such an instance,.you would have to conduct new hearings with both sides given an opportunity to be heard. Mayor Heath-. This would have to be done before 30 days. City Attorney Williams: There will be two things before you tonight --to introduce the Ordinance to rezone this property, and you have a precise plan which would be adopted by resolution. The action on the resolution is final, but the ordinance would come to you again to be adopted and would not be effective before a period of 30 days, and in that time would be subject to referendum. Mayor Heath-. How would these people present this important evidence? City Attorney Williams-. They could report to you what the evidence is claimed to be. You would have to determine whether this is important enough to re -open this case., and if you do so you must have both sides present and given the opportunity to be heard. Mayor Heath-. Would it be all right to hear if there is any new evidence and what it consists of? Councilman Snyder-. If these people say they have new evidence, we should hear it and decide if they do, which may avoid further strife, but it is up to us to make the decision whether it is new evidence. Councilman Brown-. At a previous case, there were copies presented of how the use of the property could be devel- oped, and we never gave those people a chance to speak on the Council floor, so it went to referendum. City Attorney Williams-. Councilman Snyder. - Mayor Heath-. You would not hear new evidence, but just that they contend that they have evidence such and such, What if that were done and we re- open this, and it comes out there is no new evidence? Can't we hear what the new evidence is in one sentence, something possibly really strong? City Attorney Williams-. There is a difference between hearing evidence and hearing a statement of what they contend this evidence is. They could make a statement of disposal of City rubbish on this property, and you are then not hearing evidence, but a statement of that evidence. You listen to determine whether you want to hear additional evidence relative to that statement, but you shall not hear any additional evidence. C. C. 9-26-6o Discussion ree LaBerge property - continued Councilman Towner-. 0 Mayor Heath-. us they have very important new that they can prove that there shouldn't be permitted? From the Audience. - by Council on the last meeting Mr. Joseph study them, as this not feel this property is fit the building we question, but Page Sixteen They will tell us what they are going to offer to prove. To clear the air here and clarify this, is there anyone in the aud- ience who, at this time, can tell evidence concerning this property and are outstanding facts why this zoning I do not believe any of us have new evidence. However, we do feel that the restrictions that were placed should be put on a piece of paper and gives us "shoestring" building. We do for R-Po It is your restrictions on have no new evidence. Mayor Heath-. Under those circumstances, we would have to declare we can't hear more evidence. The zoning was granted after due consideration and will become final unless some legal action is taken to stop it if Council passes it. METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION NO. 135-171 (Mrs. Gertrude Milliken) HELD OVER TO NEXT REGULAR MEETING LOCATION-. North side of Lark Hill Drive, southeast of Spring Meadow Drive 1.76 Acres - 2 Lots - Area District III. Recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 3, 1960. Council hearing held on August 8, 1960, and continued at the request of the applicant until August 22, 1960. Continued from August 22, 1960 to September 12, 1960, and held over for the result of a study session and meeting with property owners held on September 19, 1960. Review report. Mayor Heath-, no decision on this tonight. arrangement for the Thursday there have been letters sent meeting this Thursday, so we Mrs. Milliken, we know you are waiting to hear relative to your property. We..will, however, make All that we will do is finalize the meeting, if this be the case. I believe out to the homeowners regarding.the won't act on this tonight. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-171 be held over to the next regular meeting. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 43 A Proposal to amend Section 9219.14, City Initiated "Parking Spaces Required," West APPROVED AS STIPULATED Covina Municipal Code. Approval recommended by the Planning Commission under their Resolution No. 944. Continued from meeting of September 12, 1960. City Clerk Flotten-. The notice of this hearing was published in the West Covina Trib- une on September 1, 1960. C. C. 9-26-60 Page Seventeen PROPOSED AMENDMENT N0. 43 - continued Mr; Elotten stated there was a letter from the Chamber of Commerce regarding.this matter, which wa°s read, which in essence stated they . had reviewed this proposed off-street parking ratios and found them entirely acceptable, and the report of the Planning Department was read. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing. There being no testimony: presented, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Towner. Under hotels, clubs and fraternal organizations, Page 3 states there be one space per two units. I would assume that by "units", you mean sleeping quarters. Mr. Joseph-. That is correct. Councilman Towner-. It would seem to me that is a prob- lem for hotels, but for fraternal organizations it might be just a meeting place with no sleeping facilities. What is the parking requirements for those? Mr. Joseph-. One for five seats, or one per 50 square feet assembly area, Councilman Towner-. If you have a club or organization with sleeping quarters, you would put the.two together to provide parking spaces? Mr. Joseph-. That is correct. Councilman Towner-. It doesn't seem right to have more restrictive requirements for churches than auditoriums and dance halls. Mr. Joseph-. Per car it is higher for carrying more people to churches than to theaters or places of public assembly, where it might be in couples, so for that reason it has been the experience to ask for more parking for churches. City Attorney Williams-. Councilman Brown-. Councilman Towner-. You would have fewer cars if more people came in cars. I think for church attendance, it would be only the immediate family, where in going to a social gathering might be two couples in a car. The figures would indicate more cars are used going to the church than to the theater. • Councilman Snyder-. Other cities require more parking space for church use, Councilman Towner-. It seems that perhaps somewhere an original error might have been made on this, and then others just fol- owed through. I think that perhaps they should be equal. When we go to church, we take the whole family, six of us, but when we go to the theater, my wife and I try to go by ourselves. Co Ca 9-26-60 Page Eighteen PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 43 - continued Councilman Brown: The City of Freemont requires, for churches, one for each five seats 0 or one for each 50 square feet. It is reversed. Possibly the churches should be amended, but that would be the only change,in my opinion, Councilman Towner: I do not know whether one per four .seats is too much for a church, or to make it one for four seats on theaters, too, and keep both of them to that restrictiono City Manager Aiassa: Theaters are usually located where they can take a lot of foot traffic, while churches are usually in out- lying areas and difficult to reach other than by car. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that Proposed Amendment No. 43 be adopted as recommended in Planning Commission Resolution No. 944, with the exception that the requirements for theaters, dance halls, auditoriums, and other public assemblies be one per four (4) seats, or one per 40 square feet of area. Councilman Brown voting "No." PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 26108 (Horny Construction Company) APPROVED LOCATION: Cul-de-sac of Wilson Drive, north of Merced Avenue, 4.6 plus acres - 16 Lots Area District II -A Approval recommended by the Planning Commission on September 21, 1960. Councilman Barnes: I will abstain from comment or vote on this matter, as I sold a portion of this property to Mr. Horny. Maps were presented and the recommendations of the Planning Com- mission were read,. Councilman Towner: The only question I have here is the use of the word "waived" instead of dedicated, and if the owner is bound by it? City Attorney Williams: You can use this device in two different situations, perhaps more than two. A person pro- posing to develop a thing in a certain way is required to forfeit his right to pass over his property line of the boundary to the street. In the precise plan, you can indicate he waives his right to move his property to the street. The other situation is where there is development of a half street and you do not want the other individual to gain free access to the street the other man is putting in, so in the past we have indicated a one -foot lot, The Planning Act has a device where the City holds open the offer of dedication of the one -foot until it later accepts it when the other half street goes in. Whether it is waived or ded- icated depends on who you want to keep out. 0 C. C. 9-26-6o TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT. NO. 26108 - continued Councilman Snyder: Councilman Towner: City Attorney Williams: in that case, it could be a Councilman Brown. - Page Nineteen Are we going to have to be careful in each case whether we are waiving or dedicating under this new terminology? I think we should make this "waived" revert to the prior usage and have further discussion with the City Attorney on this matter. Is the developer of the tentative map forfeiting his right to pass over certain property line? If so, waiver. Yes, but what if the developer sells this and this waiver isn't part of the deed restriction and isn't bound by it? City Attorney Williams: So far as the tentative map, the waiver is sufficient. How it is to be accomplished will be on the title sheet of the final map or on a written waiver, recorded, and indicating giving up some right of passing over to the street. Mayor Heath: This calls for an easement back of property across another piece of property not in this subdivision. Is this arranged for? Mr. Dosh: I do not know, but it would have to be a condition of this approval to provide for it. We have drainage easement right now, but not a sewer easement. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 261o8 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Engineer. Councilman Barnes abstaining on the vote. METES AND BOUNDS LOCATION: South side of Workman SUBDIVISION NO. 135-173 Avenue, west of Citrus Street. (George Scofield) APPROVED .59 plus Acres - C-2 zone, Approval recommended by the Planning Commission on September 21, 1960. Maps were presented and the recommendations were read. Councilman Towner: This is part of a larger plan and similar to the Hotchkiss property at Glendora and Vine where proper parking was stipulated for the parcel and parcels sold off. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-173 be approved, subject to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and City Engineer. • 0 Co Ca 9-26-6o PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION COMPAIGN SIGNS REPORT ACCEPTED Motion by Councilman Brown, carried, that the report of and that the City Clerk be sent to the City Council. RECREATION AND PARKS PROGRESS REPORT ON BOND ISSUE Page Twenty Requested by the City Council on September 12, 1960. seconded by Councilman Towner, and the Planning Commission be accepted directed to acknowledge the communication It was indicated Mr. Mottinger had been made Chairman of the Recreation and Park Bond Committee. A meeting will be held on the 29th to discuss ways and means to approach the bond issue, the brochure and points of information as to members of the Steering Committee, The members of the Steering Committee were listed as follows. - Ernest LaBelle, 904 So Hollenbeck, West Covina Aurelia Bergman, 426 So Leaf, West Covina Helen Brown, 1227 W. Robindale, West Covina Robert Ebiner, 16738 Dubesor, La Puente Dorothy Egen, 922 Herald, West Covina Richard Eggleton, 945 Montezuma Way, West Covina Sirel Forster, 1730 S. Orange, West Covina George Henry, 1734 W. Roseway, West Covina Joe Michaelson, 2719 E. Cortez, West Covina Vern Mottinger, 2719 E. Cortez, West Covina Dale Pittenger, 2833 E. Cortez, West Covina Clifford Thyberg, 1104 Westcove, West Covina Robert Warden, 608 E. Barbara, West Covina Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that the names as listed for the Steering Committee, relative to the bond issue for Recreation and Parks be accepted and Council shall await further names to be added. APPOINTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSIONER Mr, George Henry directed to so notify Mr. Henry. Councilman Towner. - desire instead to have brochures what is to be on the bond issue. Committee can do this. City Attorney Williams: Mayor Heath, with the approval of the Council, appointed Mr. George Henry as a member of the Recreation and Parks Commission to serve the unexpired term of Mr, Wayne Bates and that the City Clerk shall be Term expires July 1, 1961. They have dispensed with the organ- ized speakers bureau for the Recreation and Parks Bonds, and as to cost, what it will buy, and However, I question whether the You can check with O'Melveny and Myers, but I believe that public money cannot be expended to influence a favorable vote on a bond issue. City Manager Aiassa.- Is there anything to prohibit us from having the Chamber of Commerce do :this? 0 C. C. 9-26-6o PROGRESS REPORT ON BOND ISSUE - continued City Attorney Williams: Councilman Barnes. - City Attorney Williams: now is to use money to influence issue. You cannot. Councilman Towner: GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page Twenty-one You cannot contract with the Chamber of Commerce to do some- thing you cannot do. What about the expending of public funds relative to the water district issue? You expend money on certain political questions, but the question we are concerned with the vote for or against a bond This interpretation should be brought to the attention of the Steering Committee. Mr. W. Woolfson We own property here in West Milbin Investment Company Covina. We sent a letter to Mr. Russell relative to the sewerage backing up underneath a house we have which caused damage. We were in touch with Mr. Flotten, Mr. Russell, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Holt of the Pacific Indemnity Company and were told by Mr. Flotten that the Pacific Indemnity Company were the carrier on this and would take care of it, but they denied the claim, stating that the insurance policy did not cover any damage. The sewerage backed up in the street and then underneath the house we own, causing the floors in the house to buckle. We had to send a termite exterminator in there, and had to have a plumber to repair the heater connections. We have bills amounting to $257.00 for the cost of taking care of the damage due to this sewerage backing up. Councilman Towner: Why do you claim the City is liable? Mr. Woolfson: The sewer lines are maintained by the City, and as soon as the sewer line was unplugged, the water receded from underneath the house. Councilman Snyder: What caused it to be plugged up? Mr. Woolfson: I do not know. This was caused in the street, as there has been is no sewerage from the house, as it was vacant and had been vacant for three months prior to this condition. Councilman Barnes: The plugging was out in the street and not in the house line? C. C. 9-26-6o Page Twenty-two Mr. W. Woolfson - continued Mr. Woolfson: That is correct. Councilman Towner: For all we -know, somebody could have put something down the line in the house, and this may not be the.fault of the City. I think we should have all the facts and get a true report on it before taking any action. City Attorney Williams: One of the problems involved is whether the sewer district or City is liable. If the City is liable, they should be insured, and the City could be liable in such an instance. 1 City Manager Aiassa: The only time the City is liable is in the process of construction, and there should be no sewerage in those lines until they are accepted for usage. Mr. Woolfson: I spoke to someone in the County, although I do not know the name now, and they looked at the map and stated this was in the City of West Covina and, therefore, had no jurisdiction over those lines at all. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - continued PROJECT NO. C-101 Accept improvement LOCATION: 1444 W. Garvey Avenue City Hall Addition Accept City Hall improvements constructed under Project C-101 by Waale Construction Company, Authorize payment of contract in the amount of $39,969.00, subject to Notice of Completion Procedure. The City Clerk indicated there had been a complaint brought against this relative to installation of the heating system. City Manager Aiassa stated there was a report signed by Mr. Percy R. Jackson, Chief Building Inspector, and Mr. R. E. Pontow, the City Engineer, which stated this had been inspected August 11, 1960, and was in accordance with the Plans and Specifications, and the recommendation was for the acceptance of these improvements. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that the improvements in Project No. C-101 be accepted, but that the sum of $907.50 be held back from final payment until the lien is removed. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None The following items were held over until after the Bond Election in November by consent of the Council on recommendation from the Staff: C. C. 9-26-6o Page Twenty-three PROJECT NO. C-124 - Approve Plans and Specifications - Orange - Merced Park Parking Lot. LOCATION: In Orange -Merced Park site. Approve plans and specifications for construction of parking lot improvements in Orange -Merced Park, Authorize City Engineer to call for bids. PROJECT NO. C-127 - Approve Plans and Specifications - Lawn Sprinkler System. LOCATION: Orange -Merced Park. Approve Plans and Specifications for construction of automatic lawn sprinkler system for Orange -Merced Park. Authorize City Engineer to call for bids. CITY MANAGER REPORTS The City Manager stated that the Baldwin Park Planning Commission has looked upon with favor the changing of Root Avenue to Puente Avenue relative to the recommended changes formerly accepted by the West Covina City Council. VENDING MACHINE ORDINANCE The City Manager indicated that AMENDMENT Mr. Lowell Ramseyer and Mr. Paul Cowen, Administrative Aide, had prepared a report from actual field inspection and other data from the staff regarding this matter. City Attorney Williams: What does the Council want in the amended ordinance? Mayor Heath: I believe it would be written up similar to what was presented, with a penalty clause in it. City Attorney Williams: I do not know whether it was written in a manner entirely clear. The present ordinance imposes a tax to those in the vending machine business. I think the tax doesn't fall on the owner of a drug store who sells gum over the counter and bubble gum in a vending machine. I do not think it requires that machine be licensed. Mayor Heath: I believe Councilman Towner brought that up. It specified this is license on the machine. City Attorney Williams: Then regardless of who owns it, 41 the machine is licensed in addition to other licenses he might have. This is also true regardless of the zone he is in. Say washing machines in an apartment house in R-3, they would still get a washing machine license. Co Co 9-26-6o VENDING MACHINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - continued Councilman Barnes: Page Twenty-four Only if for own use or tenants. City Attorney Williams: Suppose it is coin operated, machine is owned by the same person that owns the apartment, and the tenants get so many minutes of washing time for a -quarter. Washing machine outfit installs machines and collects money, but it is for the convenience of the tenants. Mayor Heath: It was if in effect for public use, If these washing machines were for tenant use only and there was a sign to that effect or a key to the door, they wouldn't be taxed. However, anything open for public use would be then licensed. Councilman Brown: Mayor Heath: Councilman Brown: another type of license and then the store. But you have these washing machine businesses who get a business lic- ense and then you would tax him for use of washing machines? It would be same with drug store and vending machines in that store. No, because Laundro-mat buys these machines for a specific use and business, while the drug store has places these vending machines in Councilman Towner: With respect to vending machine ordinance, such things as lockers in private clubs, the ordinance is written for private use only, but covered by ordinance. City Attorney Williams: The Vending Machine Ordinance is part of the Business License Ord- inance which covers over all deletion of those not for charitable organizations. Councilman Brown: I would have more of a tendency to see apartment houses taxed for coin operated (laundry) machines, because they are in competition with the man who has this as a business. Also, if the machines are run by the charitable organizations for that organization, no tax, but not if these machines are subject to them by somebody else. Councilman Towner: City Attorney Williams: 0 Councilman Towner: Councilman Snyder: Mayor Heath: The man splitting on the machines needs a license. He would need a license, the char- itable organization would not. With this explanation, I think the ordinance is correct as written. Except the laundromat thing. That can be taken care of by business license by the man having ten machines or more, Co Co 9-26-6o VENDING MACHINE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - continued Page Twenty-five The City Attorney was asked to bring in an ordinance to fulfill the requirements as outlined by the City Council, CAR POOL The City Manager submitted a detailed report and bid forms for the purchase of staff cars, with recommendations. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that the City Manager be directed to advertise for bids on four (4) Compact and/or standard automobiles, in accordance with the specifications presented, HIRING OF WATER The City Manager indicated that CONSULTANT we are called upon from time to Mr. James Montgomery time to participate in the cost of putting in larger water mains. We have been contacting Mr. Mont- gomery relative to the study of potential liability that might face this community on so-called participation, and Mr. Williams has questioned the legality of the expenditure here where the City is concerned. We have given some thoughts to what the present liability could be and of the future liability, also the cost of present and future hydrant rental. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, that Mr. James Mont P00.00. ery be hired as Water Consultant for an amount not to exceed Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None TO REMODEL AND RENOVATE THE OLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT storage at the new location, The City Manager submitted a detailed report on cost, etc. to accommodate the relocation of the Finance and Purchasing Departments and warehouse Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that authorization be given to remodel and renovate the old Planning Department to accommodate the Finance and Purchasing Departments, and Stores, with the appropriation of funds to do this not to exceed $1,000,00. The City Manager indicated this would probably cost in the neigh- borhood of $950°00a Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None 0 C. C. 9-26-6o OXBOW DRAINAGE PLAN Citrus Avenue: County Flood Control District as Page Twenty-six Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the plan be accepted and direct them to the part of the Oxbow Drainage Plan. CONTRACT FOR PRUNING TREES Motion -by Councilman Brown, & REPORT SHOWING TREES seconded by Councilman Towner, REQUIRING PRUNING and carried, that the City Manager be directed to call for bids relative to the contract for pruning trees, as per report submitted from the Parks and Recreation Depart- ment. AMENDMENT OF H, L. JOHNSON Motion by Councilman Barnes, CONTRACT AND NEW ENGINEERS' seconded by Councilman Brown, RATES, SANITATION 1911 ACTS and carried, that the Mayor And the City Clerk be directed to execute the amended agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 1941 The City Manager presented-. Execution of Contract "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL between State of California OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FOR THE and City of West Covina EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN ADOPTED THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1641 STATUTES. 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. 1941. The City Manager indicated this resolution would not be forwarded until Mr. Williams has checked the contract of Mr. Eisner's. CONTRACT FOR URBAN Motion by Councilman Brown, PLANNING ASSISTANCE :seconded by Councilman Towner, that payment be made to the State of California in the amount of $6250.00, as per contract and resolution for Urban Planning Assistance. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None • C. C. 9-26-6o MAJOR AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES FOR CONDEMNATION OF SEWER RIGHT-OF-WAY DISTRICT A'11-57-3 OR AS REQUIRED Page Twenty-seven Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that there be deposited with the Los Angeles County Clerk, through Mr. R. M. Sorenson, the amount of $11,425.00 for expense relative to the condemnation of sewer right-of-way in District A'11-57-3. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None TREASURER'S REPORT Motion by Councilman Barnes, August, 1960 seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the Treasurer's report for August, 1960, be accepted and filed. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT This relates to an improved parking PRECISE PLAN NO. 209 lot which has extended over part (Mr. Cook) of the City's parkway with a fence close to the sidewalk. The matter was discussed and reviewed with the City Attorney and Director of Public Service, with recommendation to grant this encroachment permit. Mayor Heath questioned as to whether there was any danger of legally losing this property if it is continued to be used as indicated, even if it is City property, and the City Attorney answered that there was.not. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that the Encroachment Permit be granted relative to Precise Plan No. 209, Mr. Charles Cook, subject to the following conditions: a. Mr. Cook should acknowledge that this is public property and that he is being granted a permit to use public property. b. He must be agreeable that the fence is to be removed upon 30 days notice by the City. c. He must hold the City free and harmless from any damage or liability resulting from this encroachment. d. He must acknowledge that he has no legal right to this property. e. In the event that the City wishes this fence removed on 30 days notice, he must relocate subject fence at his own expense. f. It is also desirable for Mr. Cook to utilize this area in a manner which will'not in any way hinder traffic sight distance. Therefore, he is expected to store small equip- ment that would not obstruct sight distance at this corner. • c. c. 9-26-6o Page Twenty-eight ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, PRECISE PLAN -NO. 209 - continued g. Mr. Cook must agree to reimburse the City for any damages, claims, or expense incurred by the City because of the existence of this encroachment on public property. h. Mr. Cook must agree to the above -mentioned items and acknowledge the permit by his signature. LEASE BIDS FOR POLICE Motion by Councilman Snyder, CARS FOR 1961 seconded by Councilman Barnes, Report submitted and carried, that the Purchasing Agent be directed to call for lease bids for police cars for 1961. Suggested items for consideration for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission are as follows-. 1. Sign Ordinance 2; Review of Board 3. Merced -Glendora 4. Glendora Avenue CITY ATTORNEY INTRODUCTION Ordinance amending West Covina Municipal Code relating to members of Recreation and Park Commission recommendation Alignment bridge The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTION 2321 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION." Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, and carried, that the ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: Ordinance amending code "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL pertaining to height OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING CERTAIN OF THE ZONING PROVISIONS OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO HEIGHT." Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that the ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. • C. C. 9-26-6o INTRODUCTION Ordinance -rezoning certain premises Page Twenty-nine The City Attorney -presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNI- CIPAL CODE TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES." (LaBerge) Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. Councilmen Barnes and Snyder voting "No." RESOLUTION NO. 1942 -Approving Precise Plan of Design No. 242 ADOPTED Mayor Heath: The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN N0. 242 (LaBerge)." 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, Mayor Heath Noes: Councilmen Barnes, Snyder Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 1942. RESOLUTION NO. 1943 Granting Sign Variance ADOPTED Mayor Heath: The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF.kTEST COVINA GRANTING A SIGN VARIANCE." (Safeway Stores) 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. 1943. C. C. 9-26-6o Page Thirty RESOLUTION NO. 1944 The City Attorney presented: Denying a request for variance ".A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DENYING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN." (Von's) 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 Towner, Barnes, Snyder Noes: Councilman Brown, Mayor Heath Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 1944. CITY CLERK LETTERS FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPLICATIONS FOR CARNIVALS APPROVED Proposed annexations to the City of Glendora and City of Industry. No objections. Coronado School PTA - October 22, 196o Workman School PTA - November 5, 1960. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the request for carnivals by the Coronado School PTA and Workman School PTA for the dates and time indicated be approved, subject to City departments inspection. LEAGUE CONFERENCE UNITED NATIONS DAY October 23, 24, 25 and 26, 196o Reservations obtained. October 24, 1960 Mayor Heath so proclaimed this date as United Nations Day and appointed Mr. Flotten, City -Clerk, as Chairman. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Towner: Mr. Noice has placed a 200 square foot sign on property across from the home of Mr. Erich Brunick of • 2525 E. Vine Avenue, and I have a communication protesting this use. Apparently, there is some ambiguity in the ordinance relative to temporary,signs, and I believe this communication should be answered by the Mayor stating that the City Council has considered the facts relative to his letter and there is no action that can be taken at the present time in that the sign does conform to the ordinance, but that Council is currently considering an amendment to the sign ordinance. C. C. 9-26-6o Page Thirty-one Councilman Brown: We had a job done on Glendora Avenue by the City. The job was finished and the contractor paid . off, but still we have received no breakdown of the cost expended by City forces, as was requested at that time. Mr. Dosh: We will have all the information with a report at the next Council meeting. Councilman Brown: This has been a long time for this report to be presented, and in the back of my mind, although I am not making any accusations, to take such a long time for a report of this kind, maybe it is being padded. Mayor Heath indicated that no member of Council would be able to attend the Chamber of Commerce meeting tomorrow, and W. Cowen was designated to attend. COMMITTEE OF MAYORS OF THE Motion by Councilman Brown, CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY seconded by Councilman Barnes, that the City of West Covina join this Committee of Mayors and authorization be given for the payment of dues in the amount of $100.00. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that Demands in the amount of $257,306,06 as shown on Demand Sheets B-67, C-225, C-226, and C-227 be approved. This to include fund transfers in the amount of $134,200.59 and bank transfers in the amount of $18,000.00. Motion passed on on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None SUBMISSION OF A BILL RELATIVE Mr. Williams stated that a bill TO LITIGATION IN DISTRICT had been submitted to the City for A111-57-3 the litigation relative to the validating of District A111-57-3, 1911 Act, which had proceeded with only three members of Council present, and indicated that the amount of $292.50 should be charged against the district by motion of Council. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that the bill in the amount of $292.50, relative to litigation in validating District A911-57-3, 1911 Act, be charged against that said district. C. Co 9-26-60 Page Thirty-two Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None There being no further business, motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the meeting be adjourned at 11:35 Po M. ATTEST: n L_J City Clerk APPROVED O-Ce?-� /O, / g 6 O Mayor