01-09-1961 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
January 9, 1961
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 Barnes, 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 Flatten, City Clerk
Mr. Harry C. Williams, City Attorney
Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public Works Director
Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 27, 1960 - Corrected as follows:
Page 23 - Paragraph Two: The statement of Councilman Barnes should
read "Give Mr. Thorsen the Minutes, etc.," instead of "Give him the
Minutes, etc.," as shown.
• December 29, 1960 - As submitted.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that the Minutes of December 27, 1960 be accepted as
corrected and the Minutes of December 29, 1960 be accepted as
submitted.
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS
RESOLUTION NO. 1998
Final Map of Metes and Bounds
Subdivision No. 135-158
(Union Oil Company)
ADOPTED
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 SUBDIVISION
NO. 135-158; ACCEPTING AN
AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER
AND SURETY BONDS."
LOCATION: South of Garvey Avenue, east of California Avenue.
United Pacific Insurance Company Bond No. B-81812 in the amount
of $32,000.00 for improvements on California Avenue and Center
Street; Bond No. B-81813 for $7,000.00 for improvement of Vincent
Avenue and Bond No. B-81814 for $2,800.00 for improvements on
Garvey Avenue.
The Traffic Division Report, as submitted to the City Manager,
was read by the City Clerk.
0
L�
•
C. C. 1-9-61
3
RESOLUTION NO. 1998 - Continued
Mayor Heath:
Page Two
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. 1998.
RESOLUTION NO. 1999
Accepting Corporation Grant
Deed
(Union Oil Company)
ADOPTED
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN
WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND
DIRECTING THE RECORDATION
THEREOF."
LOCATION: Center Street between California and Vincent Avenues.
For street and highway purposes to be known as California Avenue
and Center Street.
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. 1999.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000
Meeker Avenue Private Contract -
Sanitary Sewers
ADOPTED
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA APPROVING A BOND TO
GUARANTEE THE COST OF CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS AND TIME OF
COMPLETION OF AGREEMENT IN
THE CONTRACT."
LOCATION: Meeker Avenue and Yarnell Street.
Travelers Indemnity Company Bond No. 899654 in the amount of
$1,600.00 for sanitary sewers and appurtenances.
The Plans and Specifications have been approved by the City
Engineer and the prints signed by the County Engineer and Sani-
tation.Division. A. H. Minor is the contractor.
0
•
c. c.. 1-9-61
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - Continued
Mayor Heath:
Page Three
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. 2000.
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE Adoption of procedure regarding
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE lighting maintenance assess -
APPROVED ment for the years July'l, 1961
through June 30, 1964.
Mayor Heath: We received communications in
the mail concerning this plan.
Is there anyone who has
objections to this three year plan?
Councilman Towner: Not exactly that, but apparently
the estimated parcels here are
9500 parcels which would be
subject to this procedure, during the next three years, and
currently --last year --there were 9342 parcels. This doesn't
leave much leeway for new parcels in the next three years. I am
wondering whether we have enough leeway and if we fill up the
9500 parcels, what do we do for the new ones?
Mr. Rosetti: That isn't an accurate number
of parcels. We are going to
incorporate this year a new.
assessment and bring in those normally acquired this year and
then make this for a three year period, and then after this year,
there will be a separate district entirely.
In Torrance, the first was for three years, the second for two
years, and the third for -one year, then the fourth year they were
put all together. However, they had a problem because they were
installing standard steel poles and spread the cost over a three
year period, so they went through a four year period of lighting
assessment.
We would make this one for three years, then two year assessment,
although we would suggest one year rather than two, and then put
them together. The reason we do not like to recommend a two year
or five year assessment is that unless the City is fairly static
you can't abandon proceedings once you have started.
We ran into a problem where Edison Company was granted a 25%
increase in power rates and there wasn't enough money to carry
it for the three year waiting period, so the City of Torrance
had to advance the increase.
�I
•
•
C. C. 1-9-61
Page Four
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE - Continued
Mr. Rosetti - Continued: This year we are going to
Sacramento for new legislation
so there can be abandonment of
anything of this nature providing an emergency arises, say a huge
rate increase... then the proceedings can be abandoned and started
over again for another three years. Up to this time you cannot do
that.
Mayor Heath:
Mr. Rosetti:
Mayor Heath:
Will this change of legislation
go through?
Yes, we are quite sure that it
will.
If it doesn't, is there a possi-
bility of this spreading over
eight years?
Mr. Rosetti: We checked on this, but we have
reserve in this particular
district and this has been
carried each year, so there is enough to carry it for at least
one year. For three years, in this particular district, I do not
think we will run into the particular emergency mentioned.
Councilman Barnes: In regard to the paragraph
where it is stated that an
en sneer spends two months a
year on this at an estimated cost of 1,500.00 and in three years
it would save $3,000.00...do you feel we could do it in the same
length of time and save that money?
Mr. Rosetti: Each year maps have to be
brought up to date. You have
to add a bit here and a bit
there each year. In this case, you would do it once and there
would be no change in three years, so the engineer doesn't have to
fool around with the changes every year. But each three years, the
maps are brought up to date.
Councilman Towner: It would seem that this recom-
mended procedure is a good
one if it saves the City this
much money and the worst that could probably happen is rate
increases that could eat up the estimated monies.
Mr. Rosetti: However, the reason this amount
of increase was granted to the
Edison Company was because
they had gone a long time without any increase, so we do not look
forward to any increase, at least of that nature, in the future.
City Manager Aiassa:
The only question I would have
had was the rate fluctuation.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that the recommendation of the Assessment Engineer
regarding the procedure for lighting maintenance assessment for
the years July 1, 1961 through June 30, 1964 be accepted.
•
•
C. C. 1-9-61
RECREATION AND PARKS
Page Five
City Manager Aiassa: The Recreation and Parks Com-
mission, at their meeting of
January 4, 1961, reviewed and
discussed the results of Proposition M and approved and adopted
the report presented to the City Council. They recommend that a
special election for recreation and parks improvement be held
June 6, 1961, with the items the same as proposed in Proposition
M in the November general election, that the proposition be pre-
sented as a separate item on the ballot and considered on its own
merits, and also to proceed with the development of plans relative
to the issues.
Mayor Heath:
to future placement on the ballot?
I think it was a good report and
do we want to study this further
or make a recommendation as
Councilman Towner: Perhaps holding it over one
more meeting would help,
although, tentatively, I am
in agreement with the Parks and Recreation report. I think their
planning and timing is quite good. However, I would, perhaps, like
to review the items which were included in the former Proposition M
as to whether to include it all or change it in any way.
I had a meeting of the various civic representatives and Teen -Kan -
Teen Foundation, and.there was indication that there would be
substantial response from those organizations on a new bond
issue.
One topic was financing publicity and taking care of publicity in
the matter and there was indication of support in that matter.
Also, there should be the consideration of the cost of another
election. It is my understanding that election cost would be
one -tenth of that where it was held at the time of the general
election. Maybe this is in error, but it should be explored.
City Manager Aiassa:
Councilman Towner:
City Manager Aiassa:
get to them has been a complaint.
Councilman Brown:
I believe it is just the
reverse. The cost depends
on number of precincts, etc.
I believe the reason indicated
for less cost is that there
would be fewer precincts and
few election officers.
A special election limits
precincts and makes it more
inconvenient for voters to
Perhaps the City Clerk should
check with the Registrar of
Voters and find out what it
would cost.
Motion by Councilman. Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that the Recreation and Parks Commission Report, regarding
the bond issue, be held for further study; that a report be
received from the City Staff on election costs and that this
matter be referred to STUDY SESSION if possible.
•
c. c. 1-9-61
Page Six
DISCUSSION RE. RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION REPORT - Continued
City Manager Aiassa:
Mayor Heath:
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
West Covina Beautiful
CITY OF MONROVIA
Are we proposing to use the
average number precincts used
on regular municipal elections?
Whatever can be done at the
cheapest cost.
Annual City Birthday Dance,
February 4, 1961.
Council invited to attend.
Resolution regarding League of
California Cities stand on
M.T.A.
Council requested copies of the resolution.
LETTER FROM R. J. WALSH Regarding possible annexation
to the City of West Covina
of area contiguous to
Annexation No. 166.
It was indicated that this is a small section directly north of
Annexation No. 166 and Mr. Walsh would like to work on this and
has been informed of the proper procedure.
Council stated that any necessary procedure can goIahead on this.
MASONRY WALL
Letter from Alex Friedman
Mountain View Motel
It was indicated that this is between the motel property and the
Eastland Bowl, and that the Special Services Officer had been
contacted and the matter will, in all probability, be cleared
up.
TEEN-KAN-TEEN MEETING Councilman Towner: This was
a meeting of representatives
of the Chamber of Commerce,
School Board, Park and Recreation Commission, myself and Board
of the Teen -Kan -Teen Foundation.
It was clarified that the Foundation was limited by the City
Council in the past relative to raising funds for construction
of .the building and is its only function whereas the supervision
is under the control of Parks and Recreation.
40 The Foundation has been running into difficulty raising money.
They raised some $50,000 but only $8,000.00 was.net usable funds
insofar as the building project is'concerned.
The project, currently, is a bit dead and means were explored in
the way of disposing of it or reviving it.
•
0
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Seven
TEEN-KAN-TEEN MEETING - Continued
Councilman Towner (continued): There were two alternatives at
the conclusion of the meeting
which was to conduct their own
Teen -Kan -Teen campaign solely for the purpose of roofing the
building as it was thought that with a roof on. and the building
usable there would be future donations. The other alternative was
joining in with the City on the recreation bond issue and I indi-
cated this was possibly preferable to the City.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
WR A R TN(IP
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR
OBJECTIONS TO THE CONFIRMATION
OF ASSESSMENTS
To cover the installation of
sanitary sewers in the Cortez,
Hollenbeck and Vanderhoof Drive
Sewer District..
Set for hearing this date in the "Notice of Filing Assessment and
Diagram" dated December 21, 1960.
Mayor Heath: This is the time and place for
the hearing of protests or
objections against the assess-
ment levied for the improvement of Cortez, Hollenbeck and Vander -
hoof Drive by the installation and construction of sanitary sewers.
Sewer District A111-57-5.
Mr. City Clerk, do you have the Affidavit of Publication?
City Clerk Flotten:
Mayor Heath:
City Clerk Flotten:
Mayor Heath:
Yes, we'have the Affidavit of
Publication as published in
the West Covina Tribune on
December 29, 1960 and January
5, 1961.
Mr. City Clerk, do you have the
Affidavits of Mailing and
Posting?
Yes, we have the Affidavits
of Mailing and Posting.
I will entertain a motion to
receive and file the affi-
davits.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that the Affidavits of Publication, Mailing and Posting
be received and filed.
Mayor Heath:
assessment or against the
the proceedings?
Mr. City Clerk, have you
received any written protests
or objections against the
improvement as constructed or against
C. c..1-9-61 Page Eight
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS - Continued
City Clerk Flotten: We have received written protests
from the following:
Mr. Edward J. Benjamin of 1947 Rio Verde Drive, West Covina, who
protests the method of spreading the assessment.
Mr. William Dubin of 404 S. Dancove Drive, who protests the formula
used in spreading the assessment.
Mr. H. J. Bell of 732 Lupin Lane, who protests the amount of assess-
ment and the manner in which the assessment was spread. .
Charles G. Sholes, D.D.S. of 2116 East Larkwood Avenue. Dr. Sholes
last February sent a communication which requested certain informa-
tion and we have a note from the Sanitation Department that all the
questions submitted, at that time, have been answered. However, we
now have another letter dated December 24, 1960, which indicates
that in completing this work his front yard was dug up, flowers
ruined, etc., and asks the withholding of payment until the con-
tractor has made restitution for the damage which is estimated at
$100.00. He does not mention whether this is inside his property
or not. However, we felt we should mention it.
Walter Z. Baro, M. D.of 609 E1 Maranti Drive, who protests the
amount of assessment and the method used in spreading the assess-
ment.
Margaret M. Welling of 728 Manzanita Drive, who protests the amount
is in error and the cost of street improvement high.
Mr. G. Caporaso of 2727 E. Vanderhoof Drive, who protests the amount
of assessment.
Mr. Rosetti, the Assessment Engineer, took each of these cases
individually and pointed out the media by which the assessment
was arrived at.
Mr. Rosetti stated, in the protest of Or. Dubin, as follows:
In. this particular case, the man has justification for the protest.
We used 80 feet in the rear and in adding two frontages, the lot
has two frontages... split frontage ... we should have assessed him
for 77 feet, but actually assessed him for 80 feet, so we are pre-
pared this evening with the proper resolution to make a correction
in the amount of, fifteen dollars ($15.00) to his credit.
In relation to the protest of Margaret M. Welling of 728 Manzanita
Drive, there was some question in the mind of Council as to the
reference made here which indicated "high cost of street improve-
ment which doesn't improve lots."
Mr. John Lathrop of the City Staff stated, with permission of
Council, as follows regarding this particular protest:
"I think this is a misunderstanding. When assessments were sent
out it indicated this was assessment for improvements and we
received numerous telephone calls in our office as to 'why was I
assessed for street improvements?' and it was explained it was
for sanitary sewer improvements, and I believe this individual
protestor thinks it is for street improvements."
I
c. c. 1-9-61
Page Nine
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS - Continued
Mayor Heath:
If there are no more written
protests, are there any oral
protests to be made?
Mr. Quintan L. Morgan I seem to be the highest
714 S. Leeward assessed on the street and
up here on this little short
leg that is supposed to get the good deal, I feel I am the highest
assessed, so is there anything fair about it?
Mayor Heath:
Mr. Morgan:
Mr. Rosetti explained this matter.
It is working the other way
with you?
I am afraid it is.
Mr. Charles Allen I was told our assessment would
1918 Rio Verde Drive be based upon the assessment of
the lot next door. Is there a
change in thinking? I asked this question when I bought here some
time ago.
Mayor Heath:
I do not think that whoever told
you that at the time was enough
of an authority to do so.
Mr. Rosetti explained on the board this particular property and
the reason for the particular manner of assessment.
Mr. P. Lukowski If you compare Mr. Bell's with
728 Lupin Lane mine, he is paying the same
amount I am paying and his is
bigger.
Mayor Heath: I do not think there are two
lots the same in the City; and
to spread an assessment abso-
lutely equal to everyone, to the penny, is a ticklish job because
there are so many variables in it. The assessor holds no grudge
against anyone and plays no favorites, but tries to split these
as they see it, in all fairness, and taking all things into con-
sideration.
Mr. George Cole The Map recorded in the office
1309 E. Cortez does not correspond with the
description of the property I
attained when I finished with
escrow, and I assume this assessment is based on front footage?
Mr. Rosetti:
Assessible front foot.
Mr. Cole questioned as to the basis on which he was assessed, and
it was explained to him.
Sgr. Dubin:
How will we be billed as
individual property owners?
Do we have so many months or
weeks to pay up?
•
L�
a
c. c. 1-9-61
Page Ten
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS - Continued
Mr. Rosetti: After Council has confirmed
this, you have 30 days to pay
in cash. If you do not do
so, we then issue a bond against the property for ten years payable
at one installment each year in separate payments. The billing
will come from the City Treasurer on July 2 and January 2. In
January you pay the interest plus the principAk and each July you
just make interest payment for six months. Any time you wish to
pay the remaining balance off completely, then you will pay the
balance, plus that current period of interest within the six months
period.
Mr. Bell: The Engineering Department stated
that we did not have to empty
the cesspool out altogether if
it wasn't all full and could go ahead and have it back filled. Is
that correct?
Indications from Council were this was incorrect information, the
cesspool had to be drained. City Manager Aiassa asked if Mr. Bell
would furnish him with the name of the party who gave this inform-
ation, but Mr. Bell did not know except to say his wife had called
and spoken to the Engineering Department.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Towner: It appears you are using several
basis for spreading assess-
ments here, and I would like
clarification. Do you use the market value of the lot at all in
your determinings?
Mr. Rosetti:
Councilman Towner:
Mr. Rosetti:
Councilman Towner:
Mr. Rosetti:
Councilman Towner:
the total front and back footage
Mr. Rosetti:
Councilman Towner:
am
Market value of house?
am
Actual front footage at all?
No, only to.arrive at certain
basis.
Actual front footage of deter-
mining assessible front footage...
do you use that in making out
or square footage of a lot.
Depending on particular size
and topography of land.
Do you consider the length of
sewer line to serve a particu-
lar lot?
Mr. Rosetti: No, we do not do that. Design
takes care of some of that. But
a particular line may be so many
feet over to the side of the street for particular advantage for
flow or going around a corner and by doing that you may be putting
it closer to one side of the street than to the other so you can't
generalize because of design.
•
40
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Eleven
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS - Continued
Councilman Towner: On the cul-de-sac street, if I
understood correctly, it was
indicated that the bulb at the
end of the street, there is less line needed to serve those houses.
However, there seems to be some contradiction here in what has been
said.
Mr. Rosetti:
to the situation as it comes out.
These are particular instances.
You can't take one rule to all
situations, but have to adapt
We tried two or three different methods relative to cul-de-sac
streets, but found we couldn't do it and had to change it and
arrived at this method for most cities.
Councilman Towner:
Mr. Rosetti:
Councilman Towner:
Mr. Rosetti:
Indications are that this is the
usual procedure and I assume it
is tested and through the courts
determined to be fair.
We tried a particular method to
use at the instigation of a city
council, but it didn't work out.
End result of determinings is
what you call. assessible front
footage and this figure of
assessible front footage...
Becomes multiplied by rate estab-
lished and that gives assessment
to lot.
Councilman Snyder: I would point out the fact this
is not on the basis of per unit
benefit. If you had a 20 apart-
ment building with 100-foot front footage requiring one lateral,
which is possible, you would pay on only 100 feet front footage...
say $500.00?
Mr. Rosetti: Yes; but if commercial, you
could have a four apartment
structure on 100 feet, but if
in purely commercial, that is made in a separate zone. Within a
district we have, there is commercial which takes more expensive
construction, larger pipes and will have to bear the extra cost.
Councilman Snyder:
Mr. Rosetti:
Councilman Snyder:
the main trunk line into the area
peoples property than to others.
Mr. Rosetti:
It is not per unit benefit?
Assessible frontage.
People are not just paying for
the line in front of them but
everyone is helping to pay for
and it costs more to get to some
That is correct.
•
•
c. c. 1-9-61
Page Twelve
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS - Continued
Councilman Brown:
didn't work. For what reason?
courts of law?
Mr. Rosetti:
There has been discussion of
easements on cul-de-sacs and
other methods tried which
Were such methods tested in the
We had one particular case where
a Council felt they had not
assessed a public utility
enough and ordered a re -assessment. We made a re -assessment at
that time, but when they ordered the re -assessment it was taken
out of our hands and public utilities fought it in court and won,
hands down, and the judge ruled to go back to the former assess-
ment method.
Councilman Brown:
What about cul-de-sac street.
I think they all should be
pretty close to the same.
Mr. Rosetti: It is pretty close. That varies
in the respect if you have fairly
large lot, say 80, 60 or 50 feet
lot siding before you get into the cul-de-sac and each one is taken
into consideration. You have to give those people a little bit of
credit. They do not have 80-feet frontage and why are they charged
a certain amount? They will use the same reverse argument we have
been using here.
Councilman Brown:
is 200 feet, divide it and
us tonight, one lot is 45
and assessment of 1404.00.
364.00.
feet, and he pays
Mr. Rosetti:
Councilman Brown:
On one protest hearing here it
was stated if a lot is 50-feet
in front and 150 feet in back it
make 100. Taking those examples before
feet and 150 feet coming up with 190 feet
There is a lot 80 by 80, which is 160
I believe that was a pie -shaped
lot on a regular street.
No, on a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Rosetti: On the cul-de-sac the only
possible way to split such
an assessment was if they were
all similar. But we take four on end and give the same assess-
ment. Give them a small break because they are on a cul-de-sac.
Councilman Brown:
Mr. Rosetti:
But these four on cul-de-sac,
if others leading up to there
didn't put in the line, how
would they be served?
That is true they would have to
build from that point on, and
that doesn't correspond to the
same...
We have one case of a man putting in a subdivision and has 200-
foot length to serve him, but if we took him on frontage of about
200 feet or $1,000.00, we couldn't assess him that way because
the same people above him, on same, is $5,000.00.
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Thirteen
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS - Continued
Councilman Brown: My own district ran higher but
perhaps this isn't quite the
same on a cul-de-sac. I do
not know what can be done right here, but perhaps we should look
into this ourselves and meet with Mr. Rosetti and iron this out,
because people on front of cul-de-sacs seem penalized to serve
those on back of cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Rosetti:
protests of these assessments, it
courts.
Councilman Brown:
possibly something might be done
Mr. Rosetti:
This is our particular assess-
ment, and we would recommend no
changes, and if there is any
will have to be through the
I indicated that on this there
wasn't much opportunity of
changing the procedure, but
in the future.
If the City adopted a policy
they would like to change to.
Councilman Snyder: I do not agree. If this wasn't
a cul-de-sac street, but four to
six houses spread out further
they would have to build 200 feet more line. So even if those
on the bulb of a cul-de-sac pay less, people down the street are
paying less because it is a cul-de-sac.
• Councilman Barnes: Perhaps there should be a study
to see the way this is applied,
but I think the way we arrive
at assessment districts is ideal, because you have advantages and
disadvantages which have to be considered in the assessment. But
perhaps a study between Mr. Rosetti and the City Council to go
through these phases could be helpful in the future.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that all protests be overruled.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001
Modifying assessment diagram
and assessment roll
ADOPTED
Mayor Heath:
The City Attorney presented and
read:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA MODI-
FYING THE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT ROLL IN SEWER
ASSESSMENT A' ll-57-5. "
There being no objection, we
will waive further reading of
the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2001.
C. C.1-9-61
Page Fourteen
HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS - Continued
ZONE CHANGE NO. 171 LOCATION: 336, 342, 344, 346
Donald Casler and North Azusa Avenue, between
Edward J. LaBerge, Jr. Workman and Thelborn.
CONTINUED TO NEXT
REGULAR MEETING Planning Commission recommends
approval of request to re-classify
from Zone R-P to Zone C-1.
Council hearing held on December 27, 1960. Hearing closed -
decision held over to January 9, 1961.
The question was asked by Mayor Heath if it were necessary to open
the hearing relative to the information to be received from staff.
The City Attorney stated since it had been closed, all those
interested in this matter might not be present not expecting any
testimony to be given, so it would not be necessary to re -open the
hearing unless another notice is given to all interested people.
However, this did not preclude asking the staff for information
from their own files, but no evidence should be received from
any opponents or proponents.
Mr. Joseph: We have a report from Mr. Radig
on the history of the precise
plan. When this matter was
continued, a request was made that these precise plans be taken
from the files and presented to Council.
City Clerk Flotten: The Planning Department memoranda-n
indicates that this property is
subject to two precise plans,
No. 110 and No. 175. Precise Plan No. 110 was amended once,
January 7, 1959. The original plan was approved June 10, 1957, and
the area included in Precise Plan 110 is larger than that in
requested zone change No. 171.
Precise Plan No. 175, which was approved May 6, 1959, as part of
the area included in Precise Plan 110 and it is the north 72 feet
of the requested change.
The total building area, less restrooms, included in Precise Plan
175 is 3456 square feet requiring 23 parking stalls for C-1.
Twenty-three stalls have been provided.
The southerly portion of the requested zone change has 850 feet of
building planned. Six stalls are needed under C-1 and 9 on the
plan.
The stalls indicated on Precise Plan 175 are 8-1/2 wide and the
drive into the parking area on the easterly side of the property
is 10 feet wide. Neither dimension meets the present standards
of the City.
Mayor Heath: Basically there is then the
consideration of more land
than what was shown in Precise
Plan No. 175?
Mr. Joseph:
That is correct. The southerly
portion would have to agree with
amended Precise Plan 110.
•
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 171 - Continued
Councilman Towner:
Mr. Joseph:
Councilman Towner:
parking stalls, is that correct?
Page Fifteen
On this plan No. 175, it is
indicated 23 parking stalls
provided. Are those 8-1/2
feet?
Yes, and the ordinance has been
amended since this precise plan
was approved and 9 feet is now
required.
If this developed to C-1 under
present parking requirements,
there would not be enough
They'd lose almost two stalls?
Mr. Joseph: If this property were to go C-1
with the same precise plan as
shown here, there would be enough
parking if they held to the existing precise plan which shows
8-1/2 foot stalls. This is the only plan showing relation of
building to parking in accordance to zone.
Councilman Towner: But with present requirements
this wouldn't have enough
parking?
Mr. Joseph: That is correct.
• Councilman Barnes: This precise plan wouldn't be
any good to one extent because
this was never zoned C-1 prior,
so this precise plan couldn't be applied if given C-1 zoning.
Mr. Joseph: I do not believe so.
Councilman Barnes: There would have to be a new
precise plan brought in so
these parking stalls would have
to be 9 feet wide to conform.
Mr. Joseph: The parking stalls on this now
conform to C-1.
Councilman Barnes: But it isn't C-1.
Mr. Joseph: No, it is R-P, but if C-1, this
parking would conform.
Councilman Towner: But rezoning property doesn't
wipe out the old plan and it
can proceed on that.
Councilman Barnes: How can you proceed on a plan
which doesn't have proper
zoning? Can you do that?
City Attorney Williams: You can in this instance. If the
plan showed a drive-in theater,
etc., you couldn't proceed, but
this plan shows buildings, not use, and if adaptable to C-1, which
I would assume they are although it is not necessary to have C-1
plan, rezoning doesn't wipe out the plan.
•
•
C. C. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 171 - Continued
Page Sixteen
Councilman Brown: There are only two lots not
built on in this application.
First we hear they have ample
parking, then they do not have ample parking. They have ample
parking if left under present zoning, is that correct?
Mr. Joseph:
Yes.
Councilman Brown: If a different piece of property,
with no zoning, they do not have
ample parking, is that correct?
Say across the street, nothing is developed; if they build buildings
they need more parking than they now have?
Mr. Joseph:
Councilman Snyder:
Mr. Joseph:
Subtracting from that you have a
Mayor Heath:
Mr. Joseph:
Councilman Towner:
Mr. Joseph:
If they came in with another
precise plan the standards for
C-1 parking wouldn't conform to
this property.
Remainder of property is being
left as R-P.... is that usable
as R-P?
From the center line of the alley,
other half of 30-foot drive,
another 15 feet you have 95 feet.
lot 80 feet wide by 145 feet deep.
What size are buildings?
This building is 24 feet deep by
72 feet this way and these show
24 feet this way by 90 feet
that way.
What are the existing buildings
under the request for zone
change?
Real estate buildings, Copyrite
and LaBerge Real Estate.
Mayor Heath: I think this Azusa Avenue is the
worst hodge-podge I have ever
seen. Every previous Council
has taken a whack at it and the line up now has about everything
there. I do not know what we can do to control it, bring it back
into line or what we can do to make anything but a hodge-podge.
There is commercial, R-3, R-P, everything has gone into it.
Councilman Barnes:
Mayor Heath:
It couldn't go all R-P or R-3
because you have various zones
distributed throughout the area.
I'm just trying to possibly get
to some basis to start some
uniformity here. But I do not
know where you would start.
•
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 171 - Continued
Mr. Joseph:
Page Seventeen
The Commission indicated they
would like to see some uniformity
start along here also.
Councilman Towner: I think we recognize the fallacy
of strip zoning, and the problems
of it, by now, are apparent to
all of us on north Azusa Avenue. The mistakes were made sometime
ago when this type of zoning layout was placed on this street. We
are faced with an existing fact now, it is strip zoned, and whether
strip zoned R-3, C-1 or R-P I don't know.
I think we are going to be faced, in the future, with a blight in
that area .... maybe we are already.... if we keep up as strip zoning.
We have to make the best of a bad situation and I see it as two
alternatives, act on this zoning and so far as I am concerned
stripping R-P or C-1 is little difference, as you have the evils of
strip zoning already, or perhaps we may as well be practical and
let them have it or see, if we put it off, if some genius can answer
this question for us.
Mayor Heath:
stores, which they will end up as.
I think we need justification for
commercial in here. These stores
would be 24 x 24, momma and poppa
On the other side of the ledger, I do not know if it should be filled
with all R-P, either. But I would like to see justification for
commercial in there.
Councilman Snyder: We have another appeal for com-
mercial before us tonight and I
ask where that is because a rule
might apply to both pieces of property.
Mr. Joseph: It is the same as existing C-1
on it now.
Councilman Barnes: I do not see how we can stop C-1
in the area, because eventually
this whole particular block will
become C-1.
Mayor Heath: It is not consistent to say on
one side no more commercial and
on the other side we need more
commercial, which was the Commission action.
Councilman Towner: That is correct. There is con-
flict on the decision of the
two requests which seems to
indicate we should turn it over to the geniuses and let them work
on it.
Mr. Casler: We have a 45% vacancy.
Councilman Brown: We stated before this might be
a blighted area and is strip
zoned. I do not believe it is,
as that zoning had an overlay of R-3 and R-P along Azusa. This
property was originally zoned R-P up to Thelborn. Directly across
was R-P with C-1 on the south corner of Rowland. The corners, on
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 171 - Continued
Councilman Brown (Continued):
hearing with the Whitnal study, he
Page Eighteen
the original master plan, were
C-1 all up and down Azusa.
When there was the last public
arrived with R-P and R-3 here.
Maybe R-P is too restrictive and when it was written I thought
that perhaps beauty shops, etc., might belong in R-P as well as
commercial, but this zone for C-1 wouldn't be practical. Maybe
we should take another look at the R-P situation as to where some
of these other services might be included, possibly R-P, where
now they are in nothing but C-1.
Councilman Barnes: That is a possibility, including
some things in R-P that could be
used without necessarily needing
a C-1 zone.
Another thing, Mr. Casler just stated he has a 45% vacancy, and
there might be a good reason for this in that when anyone comes
in for adequate parking but won't put in additional parking, he
can starve to death out in this particular area. If he puts in
only adequate parking, he is hurting the man who owns or rents
it. This is why at the last meeting I felt that the R-P in the
rear should be parking area for C-1 zoning, to give more than
just adequate parking because you can see the fallacy of some of
this strip zoning even though it is here.
Councilman Snyder: Even though buildings are built
• here, the Commission denied one
and recommended the other, and
I think we are going to have to utilize this one way. I do not
see how you can apply different -rules to different sides of the
street so far as C-1 goes. If you look at the map of present
zoning, it seems there is a lot of C-1 already that isn't being
used for proposed zoning here.
Councilman Towner: I think that is true, although
this man has a vacancy that
seems to ascribe to zoning.
However, it may not be from the zoning but other factors because
there is substantial C-2 and C-3 zoning that has a vacancy factor
and which are in as desirable location as this. So the fact of
his vacancy doesn't necessarily mean the zoning is wrong, it may
be, but not necessarily.
This thing has puzzled and bothered me here for a long time, and
I sympathize with the people who hold property, but this isn't
the only area in West Covina that is suffering and perhaps before
committing ourselves, we should get a complete over all picture
on the entire master plan, which would include commercial and
R-P zoning throughout the City, and put it altogether in one
piece.
Councilman Snyder:
V*
so far as I am concerned.
I feel the proper procedure
would be to deny this and
send it back to the Commission,
C. C. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 171 - Continued
Mayor Heath:
0 bearing on what is done here.
Page Nineteen
It is difficult to say not on
one side and yes on the other,
and the other side has a
In fairness to this application, wouldn't it be better to hold it
off until we know what might happen to this other piece we have
before us tonight, and it may give us some indication of which
way we go.
Councilman Brown: This might be true, but by the
same token, I can see where the
Commission could have had some
contradictions here. But I am inclined to go to the other way
because there is vacant land and it would be strip zoning to make
C-1 when there is R-P on each side of it.
Mayor Heath: I do not think so, because in
trying to get some continuity
here, we should decide how
large a commercial area we want, and how far to extend it and we
might include this piece of property we are talking about.
Councilman Barnes: Is Thelborn scheduled to go on
through and make the four
corners?
Mr. Joseph: There has been no conclusion
reached by persons on both sides
• and there is no precise plan
showing the street out through, and if Mr. Beattie's zoning would
be approved tonight with the precise plan he has, it doesn't show
Thelborn coming through.
Councilman Towner: If we denied this, it would go
back to the Commission?
City Attorney Williams: No, your decision would end it.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that Zone Change No. 171 be continued to next regular
meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 The City Attorney presented:
Confirming Assessment "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
A'11-57-5 OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CON -
ADOPTED FIRMING THE ASSESS14ENT FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF CORTEZ AND VANDER-
HOOF DRIVE AND OTHER STREETS AND
RIGHTS -OF -WAY."
Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said
resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2002. \
41
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Twenty
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 LOCATION° Northeast corner of
R. B. Bowker, et al Merced and California Avenues,
REFERRED BACK TO THE between California and
PLANNING COMMISSION Glendora Avenues.,
Request to reclassify from Zone R-A to Zone R-3 and R-1..
Approval recommended by Planning Commission on December 21, 1960.
Maps were presented and the recommendations were read.
that all those,
sworn in by the,
I am speaking for the applicant,
R. B. Bowker, and I have filed
with the City Clerk a communi-
cation which I believe is self-
explanatory.
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated
desiring to present t4stimony should rise and be
City Clerk.
IN FAVOR
Walter J. Bowker
El Centro
We appreciate the work done on this by the Planning Commission, but
it is not suitable as the record of appeal and map presented by
Mr. Harold Johnson, presented to the Council, indicates.
The letter of appeal from R. B. Bowker, dated December 27, 1960,
was read by the City Clerk.
SMr. F. Bowker
18 Lagunita
.Laguna Beach
obtained with no
property without
I believe it is through my
stipulation that the applicant
cannot receive what is desired
unless he can get the street
and, also, financing can't be
access and there is no way of getting to the
an east -west street through.
I think we should look at the whole apple and the advantages to
having the street through which would benefit the City as a
whole in tax revenue, because it will help the C-1 area there
and the merchants in that area, whereas, if it is not permitted
a good portion of shoppers are going to go to the major shopping
center at Francisquito and Glendora in La Puente.
Trafficwise, this would take a great deal of burden off Glendora
if this street is opened, whereas to get to this shopping center
you need to make three left-hand turns.
The shopping area isn't before you tonight, but it is part of
the whole apple we are considering which is the welfare of the
City.
There is one other thought. I understand from the Engineering
Department that they are preparing plans for a storm drain and
they do need access from the present parking area for a 30-foot
easement to California for the new storm drain and without a
street there would be considerable expense to condemning that
property for that purpose.
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 - Continued
Mr. R. Broadwell
25 Campana Flores Drive
which is now blocked off and which
California Avenue.
Page Twenty-one
I am one of the property owners
in this C-1 property where Von's
Market is located and where the
street has been put in, but
would provide entrance to
I would like to make an appeal for the granting of the use of this
street, as originally contemplated, because for ones;{thing with the
advent of the new shopping center in La Puente, people going down
California Avenue find it easier to turn left on Merced and then
right on Glendora and go to that shopping center rather than make
all the left hand turns that are necessary to get to our center.
We are faced with the difficult and distressing economic condition
because people coming along California Avenue have no direct access
to this shopping area.
This has come before Council before, but at that time there was
evidence submitted which was in error and much of the opinion
submitted at that time wasn't by qualified people who were experts
but just personal preference.
One of the points against the use of this street was the opposition
of the West Covina School District, which has now been withdrawn
since they investigated the situation and found certain evidence
presented to them was in error. This is on record that there is
no safety hazard to school children.
With respect to developing this property further, because the
road has been closed off, we have lost one 5 and 10-cent store
chain because of the lack of possibility of good access for people
west of Glendora to this center, and there is now pending another
very large 5 and 10-cent store willing to come in providing people
can easily get into the center. It is, actually, our whole problem.
This goes way back 10 years or so, when there was a problem in
getting zoning because of having no access from California and
Mr. Whitnall and Mr. Pontow, before we had any Planning Directors,
based their objections to giving us zoning at that time on that,
saying that if we could get access to California at the north or
south end of the property so people could get in there was justi-
fication for giving the zoning. But they couldn't see having
commercial zoning if people couldn't get to it. Now we have
reverse thinking.
Then Mr. Gerschler came in and worked this plan out and held
meetings with the Council and Commission, at that time, and
developed a plan of use with this road and it was put in in good
faith. But unfortunately for us, Mr. Gerschler left and we have
a new planning director on the scene who took opposition to this
viewpoint. This does enforce a hardship, and I believe the
recommendations of the previous director, who worked so long on
this matter;, should have some weight with this. I spoke to
Mr. Gerschler, confirmed his thinking on this plan, and he
offered to meet with Council if there were any question about
it.
I ask your consideration for the use of this road, not only for
the development of the center, but' -for the whole section of this
area.
0
•
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 - Continued
IN OPPOSITION
Mr. C. Davies
1308 California Avenue
Page Twenty-two
As I understand it, there is a
master plan being prepared for
the City and I would assume
apartments are scheduled for
the freeway.
The R-3 shown is not being completely utilized and on November 8
there was a referendum on the ballot and citizens signed a petition
which indicated they prefer apartments along the freeway and not in
residential areas. There are five schools in this area.
On this location t there is a development almost completed
of houses that are scheduled to sell for $22,000.00 and are unoccu-
pied. You can imagine looking across street at apartments.
Also, apparently, this proposal is contingent on access to Calif-
ornia. Glendora is a 100-foot street with direct access onto it,
not California, and would take 25% off California. Here we are
being told it would benefit us to have more traffic.
On November 8, it was voted almost 11,000 to 6,000 that this area
shouldn't go into apartments. Why, 43 days later, did the Com-
mission by a split decision suddenly decide this would benefit
the people who live in this area. I fail to see how this will
benefit us.
Mrs. Busan I participated in the referendum
848-844 W. Barbara to stop apartments behind us.
The Commission indicated there
should be R-1 to protect the
R-1 that is already there. If that area does go into R-3, which
they tell us will be potential R-3 behind us, will we have any
R-1 to protect our R-`:1 which was there first?
Also, we feel that overcrowded conditions, such as apartments
bring in, make for children who are more likely to be trouble-
makers and too mischievous.
The large group of apartments won't help the tax situation as it
would only increase the need for added protection, which we will
have to have, and wouldn't bring as much taxes as R-1 in there.
I also wonder about the legality of the street they want to open
in there? I understood that the street will serve commercial
properties and thus couldn't empty out into a residential area.
The City Clerk read a petition in objection which contained 31
registered voters, representing 20 families, in the location of
California, Barbara, Merced and Durness.
Mrs. Gaines . In the matter of the street,
° 9124 W. Barbara the street was originally
contemplated as a storm drain
only. This matter was gone
through at the Commission meeting and Council and it was decided
it wasn't to be there. During the Commission meeting, just
recently, nobody was permitted to say anything about the street
because it wasn't there and so far as I am concerned it still
isn't there. The people who developed this knew the situation
they had there and didn't go into it blind.
•
�J
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 - Continued
Mrs. Gaines (Continued)
commercial area on Glendora was to
the people who travel on Glendora.
Page Twenty-three
It was stated that Glendora was
intended to feed that section
there and not California. The
be fed by Glendora and used by
Mr. Broadwell said the people going down California were by-passing
this center and continuing to the center on Francisquito because of
the lack of convenience. I do not believe that is so, as I go down
to Francisquito, but that is to Sav-on and if there is something at
Von's I will shop at Von's. It doesn't matter whether a place to
shop at, that we want to shop at, is several miles away or around
the corner.
If the street were there, it would be bringing all commercial
traffic in that wouldn't want to go around Merced onto Glendora.
It was stated in the Commission meeting that it (Glendora) was a
feeder street and California wasn't a feeder street, and there is
no reason that it should be when Merced is so close there. The
reason for no access from California to Glendora is because this
is so close to Merced and it wouldn't make any difference in time
and trouble.
During the Planning Commission meeting, the Chairman stated that the
Commission wasn't concerned with a mass opinion and stated that
perhaps the Council would be. I hope so, because as I understand
it that the people who vote for the City Council amount to 35,000
and we didn't solicit 11,000 votes, but talked to 2200 and were
astonished at the vote.
You have heard the reasons why we do not want R-3.
IN REBUTTAL
Mr. Bowker° We are trying to create less
traffic on California, whereas
if this is not permitted here
all the traffic will go down California to go to Francisquito or
around here.
Who would want R-1 facing R-3. We would not like it and do not
think it is good zoning. Our plan is R-3 facing R-3 and backing
up to R-1.
This area asked for didn't go to referendum and was not affected.
I think this referendum deal, from the people I spoke to on it,
thought they were voting against sub -standard housing. But we
do not plan that, we want attractive apartments that are not on
the freeway.
Mr. Broadwello It was implied that people who
are living in apartments are
more likely to have problem
children and I believe there should be some evidence to make a
statement of that sort, and there is no evidence to bear it out.
If an overcrowded area is indicated, you could only compare that
with perhaps what is considered slum area as in bigger cities,
but this will certainly be no slum or overcrowded area to that
extent or of that kind.
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 - Continued
Page Twenty-four
Mr. Broadwell (Continued): Mrs. Gaines seems to assume
that 49,000 people in West
Covina are all like her as
to her reaction to convenience. Convenience is an important
thing in merchandising and people going to a market drive around
the lot two or three times for a stall 10 feet away from the door,
so this matter of convenient access is important and it certainly
isn't everyone who will forsake convenience for attractive value.
This matter of the road was worked out with Mr. Gerschler and
wasn't over the period of years simply a storm drain and I take
issue with Mrs. Gaines on it, and if it is an issue, Mr. Gerschler
has voluntarily agreed to appear before you to clarify the matter.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Towner: As I understand it, the plan
layout by the majority of the
Commission was an attempt to
zone R-1 facing California and backing R-1 to that R-1 and face
on a new street to Merced and put apartments up across the street
as shown on study 45-X-1. This eliminated the street to California.
City Attorney Williams: Streets are not involved in this
at all. The streets shown there
are purely imaginery. Zoning is
R-1 to northwesterly section and there is shown R-3 streets to that
point. However, the only thing before you is zoning.
• Councilman Towner: This is true, and I understand
that, but if you zone 300 feet
of R-1, you force this street
into that pattern so that you end up with R-1 looking across the
street into R-3, if you follow that type of zoning. I do not
think it is a good layout so far as zoning of the property is
concerned. I am inclined to think the street layout may be sat-
isfactory, with reasonable alternative allowing access to the
shopping center, but doing it from Merced.
Councilman Snyder:
Councilman Towner:
side of the property and tie in
Councilman Snyder:
Councilman Snyder:
City Attorney Williams:
Councilman Towner:
I do not believe the street
layout opened into the center.
As I understand the layout,
this existing private street
would be used at the northeast
where the Root Beer Stand is.
As I understand it, they didn't
open it up.
If that is true, then opening
to California wouldn't do any
good.
It isn't involved in any way
in what you are considering
now.
No, but to determine what use
is on the property determines
access.
•
c. c. 1-9-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 - Continued
City Attorney Williams:
there so you are not dealing with
Councilman Snyder:
deal of the conversation has been
street back.
Page Twenty-five
That may not be there at all
whether you assume it or do
not assume it. It may not be
it at all.
As has been stated, the zoning
applied for has nothing to do
with street pattern and a great
taken up with getting Von's
The point about facing R-1 to R-3... actually, it is going to face
the front of R-3 and not the back, although it hasn't been done in
the City it isn't necessarily bad zoning because most apartments
in the front are quite beautiful and they'd still have to follow
the same setback.
In regard to the referendum. It is true that decided no apartments
in the area to the north, but it didn't anywhere state where or
how many apartments there should be in West Covina. The only
issue on the ballot were those apartments there and nothing more.
The Commission worked long, and hard, on many block studies which
were done mainly to see if zoning given could be utilized. This,
to them, seemed the best street pattern to come up with and utilize
the proposed zoning. But I, myself, wouldn't be adverse to seeing
the zoning granted as the applicant requested. Although it was a
split decision the other two were more in favor of going with the
applicant and were not necessarily against apartments entirely, here.
Councilman Barnes: In my opinion, this land could
be utilized better than this
particular plan indicates. I
favor the proponent's plan in preference to this particular one,
because this one is not making the most of our land value for
the City.
Councilman Brown: This has been hashed over pretty
thoroughly, but I can't quite
agree with the R-1 facing R-3.
I might go along with R-1 back up to R-3.
Presented to us is a map, which is shaded, showing a 135-foot
depth off California, and a 135-foot depth off Merced and which
could be worked out for a self-contained traffic flow, which has
never been shown to the Commission.
Mr. Bowker: Yes, they have seen it.
Mayor Heath: When we considered R-3 at the
north end of this property, I
was in favor of it because I
thought it was a good development. I wasn't too interested in
the size of it because it seemed too large and I would rather
have seen smaller R-3. The only reason I was in favor of it at
the time was because of the fact that it looked like a good over
all plan. Even that R-3 was perhaps too much and we have here,
now, about twice as much R-3 proposed to go in here.
I feel there should be a buffer around Von's Market of some
type, but certainly not one that will take up three-quarters
of the land as R-3.
i
c. c. 1-9-61
Page Twenty-six
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 - Continued
Mayor Heath (Continued): If this property to the south
of Merced can develop into
homes of $22,000.00, I can't
see why this property can't, also, and I think there could be a
re -study of this, or revised plan submitted, where the buffer
would be cut down to a minimum and permit a lot more R-1. I
think it would be a better development and something more of an
asset to the City.
Councilman Towner: I think one thing indicated here
is that we do zoning by popular
demand and that is not true.
We have to vote as our conscience guides us to vote, and there was
some indication of unseating Council at elections if they do not
vote the way it is wanted we should vote. This is unfair, because
we must vote what is the best use of property and which is a dif-
ficult position to be in. We must exercise our best judgement on
the evidence presented to us and not by emotional appeal of either
party. We are in a.judicial type of position and must hold aloof
and review objectively.
With that in view, I would indicate that there is a need of buffering
of commercial uses in the area. On the other hand, I believe the
Planning Commission proposal isn't a proper solution. I think that
they have presented us with more problems instead of less problems.
The applicant has indicated that they couldn't use it in any event,
so what they are asking for is different from what the Planning
Commission approved.
So far as the proposal of the Planning Commission, I would deny
it, and as far as the proposal indicated by the applicant as to
what he could use, it seems to me too extensive.
A motion by Councilman Towner to deny Zone Change No. 170 failed
for the lack of a second.
Councilman Snyder: I can't see how you can put in
R-3 to buffer without having
that much.
Councilman Brown: I think there was discussion
several times and there is
considerable friction between
Council and the Commission because Council is overruling without
their getting a second look at anything. If action was taken on
the motion of Councilman Towner, we would be completely over-
riding the Commission, and I think that it should first be
referred back to the Commission.
Councilman Towner: I would have no objection.
City Attorney Williams: Further reason is that the
application is to re -zone R-A
to R-3 or R-1. You have before
you a situation where you can prescribe the buffer zoning that
you want. It is an application broad enough to make any part
you want R-1 and any part R-3, so you have something before you
which you can accomplish, which you want to accomplish, so indi-
cate your desire and send it back to the Commission.
C. C. 1-9=61 Page Twenty-seven
ZONE CHANGE NO. 170 - Continued
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, that
Zone Change No. 170 be referred back to the Planning Commission
because, although the Council agrees with the theory of buffering
around the existing commercial usage, they believe the Planning
�. Commission proposal for R-3 is too extensive.
Councilman Snyder: I would make one observation...
that apartments are homes, too,
which people seem to be
forgetting.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Mayor Heath
Noes: Councilmen Barnes, Snyder
Absent: None
ZONE CHANGE NO. 172 and LOCATION: 1750 E. Rowland,
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 255 between Azusa and Lark Ellen
C. H. Beattie, Jr. and Avenues.
Mariette B. Miller
DENIED Planning Commission denied
request for reclassification
from Zone R-3 to C-1 and for
adoption of Precise Plan of Design.
Appealed by applicant on December 23, 1960.
Is Maps were presented, the recommendations read, and it was stated
by the City Clerk that Proof of Notice of the Hearing as pub-
lished in the West Covina Tribune on December 29, 1960, had been
received.
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated that all those
desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by
the City Clerk.
IN FAVOR
Mr. C. H. Beattie, Jr. We believe the best method to
1715 Rowland Avenue support our requested zone
change is to refute the reasons
given by the Planning Commission
under their resolution 9865 which presented five facts as grounds
for unfavorable action.
1) The property is located at the northwest side of Azusa Avenue,
south of Rowland Avenue and presently zoned R-3.
This is correct.
2) To extend commercial zoning in strip fashion along Azusa
Avenue is unappropriate since the City is generally engaged in
a general planning program and it would conflict with the zoning
process.
The Planning Commission conceded that the American Legion is C-1
use now and gave approval of Zone Change 171, which would create
strip zoning on the east side of Azusa, between Workman and
Thelborn, and set a planning precedent for this vicinity and
area. The first development at the northeast corner of Rowland
and Azusa was approved by ordinance 268 of September, 1953.
C. C. 1-9-61
Page Twenty-eight
ZONE CHANGE NO. 172 and PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN 255 - Continued
Mr. C. H. Beattie, Jr. (Continued):
This intersection was indicated for commercial development by the
master plan in 1957 and retained and revised in 1954 and which was
contemplated in the general plan program and would of necessity
conform to the established planning program with Rowland and Azusa
as the hub.
3) This would perpetuate spot zoning along a major thoroughfare in
conflict with the intent of the general plan.
This request is to the west of existing zoning and 30 feet to the
south, and by doing this would eliminate a spot zoning situation.
The only thing it acted as was a buffer between R-1 and the C-1
property which is no longer feasible because in the zoning map it
was ruled on property along Azusa Avenue, east and west approxi-
mately 660 feet it would be potentially commercial.
4) To grant the zone would be to deny access to R-3 zoning at
rear on Azusa.
On Precise Plan 255 we show a 50-foot alley to R-3 property to the
rear. We are willing to show a 60-foot street.
There is existing commercial zoning on land lying vacant immediately
north and considered for commercial. Land should be utilized for
the highest and best use and what we are requesting is that
extended to our neighbors. The area to the north had R-3 but
with approval of Commission and Council, it now benefits by the
nature of a miniature golf course by permit. Mr. Eichsteadt has
been extended special privileges which permits a C-2 use on
grounds zoned for R-1 purposes. By denial of this request for
zone change, the Commission would violate its own code.
5) The sole purpose of any variance or zone amendment is to
permit privileges shared by others in the same vicinity or zone.
It would be a hardship. If this is denied, it would lose the
benefits of a 10 years lease, with possibly ten more, from a
substantial rental.
,This zoning meets the requirements of the A.B.C.
The denial of highest and best use could limit the use.
MR. D. Casler Mr. Beattie has covered many
1835 W. Adams Drive things and the need for an
West Covina extention of the C zoning is
apparent with the R-3 coming
in around it, and the amount
of people that will be coming in.
There are three sides with R-3 zoning and several more of the
same and there will be a demand for C-1 uses on north Azusa
Avenue.
There are no other stores around Mr. Beattie's parcel for at
least a half mile radius, and there are no walk-in shopping
areas in the vicinity.
C. C. 1-9-61
Page Twenty-nine
ZONE CHANGE NO. 172 and PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN 255 - Continued
Mr. D. Casler (Continued) -
We should alleviate spot zoning and have the continuity of zoning
by commercial zoning from a given point such as Rowland and com-
mercial both sides south of Rowland.
Highway 39, or Azusa, is to be a four -lane highway, and the amount
of traffic will certainly warrant commercial, and it is right off
the freeway.
There has been talk of strip zoning as a disease. That to me means
something detrimental, or not desirable, but if we have R-P and
C-1, I would like to know what the difference would be so far as
the neighborhood is concerned? What would it take away from the
neighborhood to change f rom.R-P to C-1 or R-3 to C-l?
We have R-P, commercial and R-3 facing Azusa and this isn't contin-
uity in zoning. This isn't a disease, this is a necessity for the
amounts of residential and R-3 not having so far to walk to stores.
It is even an ideal situation for a super -market.
Mr. E. LaBerge There has been referred to the
Rancho San Jose Drive matter of a sanitation district
Covina pattern already established for
assessment rules, and I think
we should look at other cities.
Los Angeles has the same problem as Azusa relative to Sepulveda.
They have a mixed use in the region; houses, apartments, commercial,
etc., the same problem and business zoning is the only way to go.
You take anyone driving up Azusa and ask their opinion and they
can only see C-1, business, for north Azusa. They are only laymen,
true, but it is something to be considered.
I also think the Planning Director should make recommendations and
that power, should be put back so as to.take away the burden on you
gentlemen'if.you have so little evidence when you have to make
decisions.'
I am wondering, also, how C-2 zoning could be permitted in on a
variance when we can't get what we desire by going through proper
channels?
The City Clerk read a communication expressing approval of the
zone change, dated January 3, 1961, from Mary A. Keith and
indicating reasons it should be approved.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Brown- All the property zoned along
Azusa Avenue is R-P for 660 feet
each way from Azusa, east and
west. I think it is a uniform zoning other than the corners zoned
C-1 or changed by variance. I can't see where there is a need for
C-1.
Councilman Snyder- I would go along with Councilman
Brown. We have C-1 not being
used nor built on for the pur-
pose :which it is zoned.
r�]
•
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Thirty
ZONE CHANGE NO. 172 and PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN 255 - Continued
Councilman Towner:
turn out C-1 is the answer.
here, except I think it needs
I haven't decided yet, in my
own mind, what should be done
on north Azusa, and it might
I have been pretty much committed
the over all study.
So far as the precise plan is concerned, I see it has substantial
problems there with the balance of the R-3 property remaining,
which again is facing into Rol on a street as if it were going
to Azusa from Thelborn, and the plan is defective in that respect.
Councilman Barnes: I do not see any real need for
it (commercial) at this time.
I feel that if property across
the street, or catty -cornered, from this is going to be studied,
this should be taken up in the same study session. I think you
have a problem here, and a like problem, and I think it should
be studied together in study session.
Mayor Heath: There is quite a bit of com-
mercial not developed, which
leads me to believe it is not
needed for commercial right now along there, which makes it
difficult for me to justify a further need.
Mr. Beattie: One reason was the McDaniel's
Market on the freeway. Word
gets around there is over-
building on super -markets, and McDaniel's is within a half mile
and Market Basket three-quarters of a mile.
With regard to this restaurant, there is the Pioneer School here
and it is a requirement of the A.B.C. that there be a minimum
distance of 600 feet between school and such an operation.
Therefore, we can't use it at the other end, and actually it
would be poor utilization of the property to zone it that dis-
tance from a school.
Councilman Snyder: I can't see asking for a zoning
use just because of a ruling
of the A.B.C.
I still think it is not necessarily bad planning to front R-3
to R-1. It is not done in the City, but it is in many cities and
in my opinion I think it is a very good way.
Mayor Heath:
the super -markets in the vicinity,
there are too many major shopping
too much commercial already.
This might develop into a
bigger shopping area if it
were tied together, but with
it probably wouldn't because
areas around. Maybe there is
Councilman Towner: I think we are shooting in the
dark here. I do not see how
we can say there is or isn't
enough of certain zoning on this particular street from any other
in West Covina, we just can't tell. There are indications we
have substantial areas of commercial property going begging and
it is true there isn't the demand we would all like to have.
C. C. 1-9-61
Page Thirty-one
ZONE CHANGE NO. 172 and PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN 255 - Continued
Councilman Towner (Continued):
It seems about the only thing and best we can do is to hold it
with the other proposal or send it back to the Commission until
the master plan is studied, but I am not sure that is right.
That is like trying to master plan with a gun at your head.
Councilman Brown: I understood to hold the other
over was not so much for study
but to see what we did on this
one, and I did it with that intent, and I think there has been
thorough consideration given to these cases. Although, since
the other is designated to be continued, we can leave it at that.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that Zone Change No. 172 be denied, which conforms with
the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 47 To amend street and highways
City Initiated element of General Plan
APPROVED extending alignment of
Merced Avenue, easterly
of Glendora Avenue.
Approval recommended by Planning Commission on December 21, 1960.
The City Clerk stated that the Proof of Publication of the notice
of public hearing as advertised in the West Covina Tribune of
December 29, 1960; had been received.
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated that all those
desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by
the City Clerk.
Mr. G. Redfield I am not for or against, but
443 E. Merced I felt there should be some
things pointed out.
I am not affected except only by some 15 or 20 feet of property.
However, Mr. John Skelton's house to the west would be, this would
go right through his house, and I am wondering that if this is
approved, if there is any provision made to purchase his property
because it will create a hardship.on it.
In putting in the new tract over here, the Commission could
possibly have moved the streets a little further to the right,
creating a curve and almost missing his house. The house next
to Mr. Skelton's would have the street quite close. .
I am not opposed to it, and I believe the street has to go
through, but I felt that in all the plans presented this is
the most adaptable and only point out the problems created to
Mr. Skelton should he want to sell his house in the meantime.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed.
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Thirty-two
PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 47 - Continued
Councilman Brown: So far as this pertains to
Mr. Skelton's property dis-
cussed in these hearings,
this road has been on and off the master plan for the last
seven years.
So far as the purchase of property, this will have to be bought,
but like all roads, first it is a line on the map and property is
acquired as needed, and State gives money making available purchase
of Mr. Skelton's property in the future. Freeways are laid out and
property bought when money is available and the road ready to be
built.
It will create a hardship, but the road must go through somewhere
and we have to make up our minds where it is to go.
Councilman Towner: I agree that we need to make up
our minds and the line has been
pretty much determined, and
insofar as Mr. Skelton's property being up for sale in the future,
he would have to acknowledge it whether on the map or not that the
street would go in eventually.
We hope to get this in as soon as funds are available, but we do
not know when that would be, exactly. But it is a necessary artery
for traffic in the City.
I think, so far as I am concerned, there is no alternative to it
• now. There is the alignment on the west and the curvature running
through is the only one that is feasible, engineering wise, and
does the least amount of damage.
Councilman Barnes: I've sat in on many hearings
in which Mr. Skelton has
objected many times. We
tried to protect him by stopping this alignment of Merced Avenue
at Glendora. After this had been done, we had a void on the
Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and without complying we
aren't entitled to gas tax money on this street. A lot of delib-
eration has gone on regarding this street and it is worked out
now, but it will be at a future time when it will actually be
developed.
Councilman Snyder: I would have little to add to
what has been said, except the
only alternative would be to
perhaps build a tunnel.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that -Proposed Amendment No. 47, City Initiated, as sub-
mitted by the Planning Commission be approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003. The City Attorney presented:
Vacation of a certain portion "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
of Sylvan Avenue OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
ADOPTED ORDERING THE VACATION OF A
CERTAIN PORTION OF SYLVAN
AVENUE."
Resolution of Intention No. 1984 to vacate a portion of Sylvan
Avenue. (Portion of Lot 5, E. J. Baldwin's Fourth Subdivision,
Precise Plan No. 26.)
•
c. c. 1-9-61
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 - Continued
Page Thirty-three
LOCATION: On Sylvan Avenue, between Batelaan Avenue and Walnut
Creek Parkway,
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. 2003.
PLANNING COMMISSION
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT LOCATION: West of Walnut
NO. 25778 Creek Wash, south of Cameron
(L. Sugar) Avenue.
APPROVED
1-1/2 Acres - 7 Lots - Area
District I
Approval recommended by Planning Commission on January 4, 1961.
• Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 25778 be approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
AGREEMENT WITH MR. THORSEN
91'_5-t C,,,vl y q D/sf"'-4 Cd .
changes he felt should be made,
Mr. Williams went over this
agreement with Council
indicating the various
with reason given.
Mr. Thorsen indicated that he would go along with these changes,
including the paragraph change in relation to business license.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that the contract with Mr. Thorsen be tentatively approved
in its present form subject to the changes such as putting it in
contract form, changes on the failure to perform provision,
changes relative to termination, etc., and that the City Clerk
shall make a review of the rate schedule.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
STREET TREE PRUNING A report dated January 4, 1961,
had been presented to Council
as discussed at budget time.
Councilman Towner:
After seeing this proposal,
buying our equipment might be
the answer, as here we have a
small section of a tree pruning program at a cost almost as much
as it would cost to buy the equipment.
•
•
Ll
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Thirty-four
STREET TREE PRUNING - Continued
Councilman Snyder: Can we afford this experiment?
Councilman Towner: Maybe we shouldn't, but go ahead
and buy the equipment.
Councilman Brown: I do not agree. This pruning
situation got away from us once
because we couldn't keep up.
We won't have this expense every year. From our past experience
of our. crews trimming trees, I do not think it would be much
cheaper.
Councilman Snyder:
Mayor Heath:
Councilman Brown:
We are spending $5,800.00 and
it will do 1/100th of the City.
City might have to do it for
more.
You can trim trees only a certain
time of the year, as I understand
it.
City Manager Aiassa: Previously, we had the problem
of limitation of manpower. How-
ever, I feel we should try a
contractor and if it doesn't work out we can then see more clearly
what road we have left to us.
Mayor Heath:
City Manager Aiassa:
Councilman Brown:
City Manager Aiassa:
charge to the Department(s).
it can be done.
Councilman Brown:
City Manager Aiassa:
You wouldn't know what the cost
would be if the City did it.
You would have the unit cost.
If we bought equipment, would
it be listed cost wise to us?
There are two ways of doing it.
Taking it.on lease basis, using
this method, we have a fixed
It will take some bookkeeping, but
Outside pruners get unit price
and next year could raise it.
We could lease it and, if worth-
while, then buy it and make
lease appliable to purchase
price.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that specifications for Street Tree Pruning Contract
be approved and authorization given for City Engineer to call
for bids.
C:
•
c. c. 1-9-61
Page Thirty-five
OVER-ALL BRIDGE REPORT This is a supplemental agreement
which Council received copies of
and which conforms pretty well to
the original contract on which Council was given a written report
and preliminary estimate as follows:
Deposit for Bridges and Approaches Betterments - $518,511.89
Deposit for Drainage Betterments 127,895.94
Total Deposit $646,4o7.83
Less Advance Deposit 31,000.00
Net Deposit - January, 1961 (Approx.) $615,407.83
Summary reference breakdown is as follows:
*(Add 10% Overhead - USED) ** Approximately $40,000 FAS Fund
WAdd 10%�Contingency - USED to be Reimbursed by the State
d 2.1 Overhead - LACFCD) Division of Highways and Funds
Allocated by the County.
(Bond Issue Drain)
Credit from the Bond Issue
monies for drains which are
part of the bridge program
There will be money returning to us from aid from County on Sunset
Avenue and Cameron Avenue footing, and from the State Highway
Division on Glendora bridge improvement, which amounts to over
$100,000 from grand -in -aid right there. There will be some cost
back to us from extras or charge orders, also, if these estimates
are lower than the actual bids, it is reasonable to receive refund
or credit. Estimates appear high from the actual figures we have
on Vincent Avenue.
Request the City Council to look over the proposed agreement and
if they have comments, to notify the City Manager as soon as
possible. This should be approved on 1/23/61.
DUES FOR UPPER SAN GABRIEL $100.00.
VALLEY WATER ASSOCIATION
To be studied at Monday night
study session.
Councilman Barnes indicated this was supposed to be studied in
study session with comments by Council, which hadn't been done.
It was indicated this be held over for next Monday night study
session.
CITY ATTORNEY
INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented:
An ordinance relating to signs "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
and advertising structures OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO SIGNS AND
ADVERTISING STRUCTURES."
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be
waived.
•
•
c. c. 1-9-61
Page Thirty-six
ORDINANCE RE. SIGNS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES - Continued
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that the ordinance be introduced.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004
Designation of Tax Districts
for 61-62
ADOPTED
Mayor Heath:
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA DESIGNATING TAX DISTRICT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 1961/1962."
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. 2004.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005
Describing certain. portions ,of
the consolidated County fire
protection districts
ADOPTED
Mayor Heath:
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA DESCRIBING A CERTAIN
PORTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED
COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS
WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AND
DECLARING THE SAPS WITHDRAWN
FROM SAID DISTRICT."
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. 2005.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006
Approving and authorizing
acceptance of an amendment
to Contract
(Occidental Life Insurance)
ADOPTED
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACCEPTANCE OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT NO. 6378-N WITH
OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA AND
AMENDING THE PENSION AND DISA-
BILITY BENEFITS PLAN IN
CONFORMITY THEREWITH."
•
c. c. 1-9-61
RESOLUTION NO. 2006 - Continued
Mayor Heath:
Page Thirty-seven
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. 2006.
Mayor Heath mentioned the cleaning of dirt and debris on the
frontage road, and Mr. Aiassa stated that in such cases there
is to be presented a written request, on the proper form, to
the City Manager.
REQUEST OF MR. BONELLI For the Mayor, and other parties,
to meet with Mr. Bonelli regarding
use of street signs in the
problem of Holt Avenue.
It was indicated this matter was before the Planning Commission
and it was regarding change of name rather than street signs
• indicating Holt Avenue in the City and in Pomona. It was stated
that the Chairman of the Planning Commission should attend with
Mayor Heath.
Mayor Heath stated that a communication had been received from
the United States Post Office Department relative to the resolu-
tion passed regarding parking and indications were given that a
request had been made for the Regional Operations Director to
look into this matter of parking spaces relative to our post
office.
JOINT MEETING WITH
PLANNING COMMISSION
SALARY RECLASSIFICATION
JOB DESCRIPTION
PERSONNEL BOARD
service and cost for a
description.
Valinda Avenue Extension
Thursday, January 26, 1961.
AND Motion by Councilman Towner,
seconded by Councilman Brown,
and carried, that the Personnel
Board be directed to make a
recommendation to Council on
salary reclassification and job
Councilman Barnes: I left the study session early.
In regard to the Juvenile Officer
to be hired by the City, the
Personnel Board is a little in doubt as to just what the Council
meant when it was referred to them in determining whether he
should be hired from outside or a man from our Department, and
what type of man, or what classifications he should have as an
officer.
C. C. 1-9-61 Page Thirty-eight
SALARY RECLASSIFICATION AND JOB DESCRIPTION - Continued
Councilman Towner: Get a communication from
Mr. Sornborger as to what
their doubts are, and then
perhaps we can clear them up.
Councilman Brown: Don't you suppose the State
Personnel Board has qualifications
written up?
Mayor Heath: [mould we want to take someone
from outside or take someone
from our Police Department?
Councilman Brown: Get specifications, and if someone
in our Department can meet them,'
O.K. But get the specifications
and make it an open position.
Councilman Barnes: I think they were in doubt as to
just what background the man
should have, psychology, or what.
Councilman Brown: Get specifications for what others
require for such an officer.
Councilman Barnes: Chief Allen Sill is going to have
some men of this type in to talk
to the Personnel Board and perhaps
• after listening to these people, they will be able to write speci-
fications for such a man.
DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Towner,
seconded by Councilman Snyder,
that Demands in the amount of
$97,740.33 as shown on Demand Sheets B-68, C-240 and C-2.41 be
approved. This to include fund transfers in the amount of
$55,922.53.
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 Towner, and
carried, that the meeting be adjourned at 12:55 A.M. to Monday,
January 16, 1961 at 7:00 P.M.
APPROVED 3,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk