04-10-1961 - Regular Meeting - Minutes4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY_'COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
April 109 1961
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Heath at 7g40 P. M. in
the West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by
Councilman Barnes with the invocation given by Councilman
Towner.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Heath, Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes
Others Present-. Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager
Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk
Mr. Harry C. Williams, City Attorney
Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public.Services Director
Mr. Harold Joseph;
Planning Director ('Prom
8-.00 P. M.)
Absent-, Councilman Snyder
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 27, 1961 Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by
Councilman Brown, and carried, that the
Minutes of March 27, 1961 be approved as
submitted.
CITY CLERKS REPORTS
EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT TIME
Metesand Bounds Subdivision
.No. 1315-157
(Arthur A. Ciancio)
LOCATION: South side of
Puente Avenue., west of
Vincent Avenue.
I
APPROVED To extend agreement time
-to/install improvements
(sidewalks). The final map
was approved and ca-sh-depositaccepted tinder Resolution No. 1802.
The City Engineer recommends A 12 months extension.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that the request for.:the extension of agreement time to
install improvements (.sidewalks) in Meter and Bounds Subdivision
No. 135-157 for a period'of'12 months be approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 2074
Accepting a Grant of Easement
(Albert Handler)
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 RECORD-
ATION THEREOF."
LOCATION: West side of Lot 5, Tract No. 20456. (Northwest corner
of Azusa And Cameron Avenues.
To accept grant of easement to Mobeck Street for sanitary sewer
purposes. Staff recommends acceptance and the adoption of the
resolution.
a
0
i
C. C. 4-10-61
RESOLUTION NO. 2074 - Continued
Mayor Heath-,
Page Two
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, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent; Councilman Snyder
Said resolution was given No. 2074.
TRACT NO. 21913
LOCATION Gretta and Merced'
Accept Sanitary Sewer Facilities Avenues.
(Leader Construction company, Inc.)
APPROVED To accept sanitary sewer
facilities. Bond will be
released when street im-
provements are accepted by Council. Inspector's final report is
on file and Staff recommends acceptance.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that sanitary sewer facilities in Tract No. 21913 be
accepted.
PROJECT NOS. SS-14 and SS-15 LOCATtONS: Palm View Park
Award of Informal Bid to Contractor and Cortez Park Sewers.
Leo J. Bonham
Bids were received as adver-
tized at 10-.00 A.M., April
6, 1961, in the office, of the City Engineer.
The report of the -City Engineer, including the bid totals of the
individual bidders is as follows-,
"These projects were approved by the City Council on March 13, 1961
subject to plan amendment for the Palm View Park connection. Bids
received are summarized below: I
City Engineer's estimate $1,256.65
Leo J. Bonham 1,179.71
Max Milosevich 1,284.13
California Sewer Construction Co. 1,394.48
M. C. Nottingham Co. of So. Calif. 1,441.00
Boskovich Constr. Co. 1,450.6o
R. E. Downer 1,601.91
Brisco Constr. Co. 1,939.58
The bid proposal was submitted to the above contractors
indicating only two cesspools to be backfilled. In
reality three cesspools must be backfilled and therefore
each of the above bids has been appropriately corrected
based on the unit price for cesspool backfill to include
backfilling of all three cesspools. This does not effect
the order of the lowest three bidders in the total con-
tract amount. It does, however, reverse the order of the
.fourth and fifth lowest bidders.
C.-C. 4-10-61 Page Three
PROJECT'NOS.' SS-14 and SS-15 - Continued
The City Council is advised that the Shubin-Tolstoy Construction
Company has made arrangements for the completion of street improve-
.ments and residential structures on Carlton Avenue and Eckerman,,,
Avenue, Tract No.-20199, and intend to start work immediately.
'Since a portion of the construction for Palm View Park lips within
the boundaries of this subdivision., and since the bids were based
upon the fact that no street improvements conflict with the con-
struction and would, therefore, not have to be replaced, it is of
the utmost importance that the award of contract be approved and
the construction commenced immediately on the sewer connection.
It is,
therefore, the recommendation of this office that the con-
tract for our Projects SS-14 and SS-15 be awarded to Leo J. Bonham,
t�
the low bidder, in the amount of $1,179.71 and that said contract
be awarded by the issuance of a purchase order in that amount."
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, that
the contract for Projects SS-14 and SS715 be awarded to Leo J.
Bonham as the lowest responsible bidder In the amount of $1,179.'71
and that said contract shall.be awarded by the issuance of a pur-
chase order in that amount ($1,179071). Motion passed on roll
call as follows-.
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes*. None
Absent-. Councilman Snyder
PROJECT NO. c-141 LOCATION-. Barbara Avenue, 'rom
Street Resurfacing in Sanitary California Avenue to Duff Ave.
Sewer District-A'11-58-4
APPROVED To approve contract with B.'J.
Zarubica for the resurfacing
in connection with completion
of sewer improvements, Assessment District A111-58-4. Estimated
cost $1,000.00 - $1,500.00 budgeted.Staff recommends approval.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
the City staff be instructed to proceed with the street resur-
facing improvements on Barbara Avenue from California to Duff
Avenues with the cost not to exceed the amount of $1,500-00.
Motion passed on roll call as follows-,
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes., None
Absent: Councilman Snyder
RELEASE OF $1,000.00 Excavation Principal: William P. Neil
Bond Co., Ltd.
APPROVED
To authorize the release of
.Hartford Accident and Indem-
nity Company Bond No. 3135280 in the amount of $1,000.00. All .
obligations guaranteed by this bond have been satisfactorily ful,7
filled. Staff recommends approval.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that authorization be given for the release of Hartford
Accident and Indemnity Company Bond No. 3135280 in the amount of
$1,000'."00*to the Principal, William P. Neil Co., Ltd.
•
C. C. 4-10-61
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS
OFREIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS
AND APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF
. RETMBURSEMENT FUNDS
APPROVED
Page Pour
The City Engineer requests the.
acceptance of the report and
approval of payment of reim-
bursement funds.
Motion by Councilman Towner,
seconded by Councilman Brown,
that the annual report on the status of Reimbursement Agreements
and the payment of reimbursement funds be approved.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Snyder
RECREATION AND PARKS
City Manager Aiassa:
for the coming bond election and
City Clerk Flotten:
Councilmen should be advised
that there is the necessity
to consolidate the precincts
consolidate them by a resolution.
solidated into 27 voting precincts.
There are 85 precincts in the
City and for this special
election they have been con-'
I would, at this time, like to commend our Assistant City Clerk,
Lela Preston, for the fine ,job in getting these precincts and the
workers in these precincts together. The many contacts required
to get 27 precinct boards together turned into quite a 'job, and it
was all completed since Thursday, Noon, and an excellent job was
done. 108 board members were needed, together with 27 voting
places.
The necessary resolution and other legal requirements of the bond
issue will come up under the City Attorney's business later on
this agenda.
AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSFER OF Account 201-A
FUNDS TO COVER COST OF SPECIAL
BOND 'ELECTION
APPROVED
City Manager Aiassa: We would like authorization
from the Council to transfer
funds from Account 201-A,
salaries, to cover the cost of this bond issue election because
we have no monies allocated for this bond issue. This money was
saved where two people, Mrs. House and another employee, were not
immediately replaced.
Mayor Heath: We still have money for the
football field?
City Manager Aiassao There is approximately $9,000
in this account and it will
take about $8,000.00 for the
election plus incidental expenses for legal procedure. We will
obtain a saving of some $300.00 through the assistance of Mr.
Williams by repeating what was done at the last special bond
election and, -only engaging them (OlMelveny and Myers) if the
C. c.- 4-10-61 Page Five
.AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS Continued
City Manager Aiassa - Continued:
bond issue is successful and they will set up the legal procedure
after the results of the election.
Councilman Brown-.
I
City Manager Aiassa-.
close to $6,000.00 plus printing,
vices of O'Melveny and Myers.
I am wondering about the
$9,000.00. That seems quite
a bit.
The City CoU ' ncil was given a
breakdown of the cost of this
election. It was estimated
etc., and the cost of the ser-
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
authorization be given for the transfer of up to $9,000.00 from
Account No. 201-A to Election Account No. 114-B.
Motion passed on roll call as follows-.
Ayes-, Councilmbn Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes.- Councilman Brown
Absent-, Councilman Snyder
RESOLUTION NO. 2o76
Accepting agrant deed
(Kenneth Rowland French and
,leanne French)
ADOPTED
The City Clerk presented-,
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN
WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DD�
RECTING THE RECORDATION
THEREOF."
LOCATION: Service Avenue, intersection of Walnut Cr_0ek Wash.
To accept a grant deed for street and highway purposes to be
known as Service Avenue.
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, Mayor Heath
Noes- None
Absent: Councilman Snyder
Said resolution was given No. 2076.
RESOLUTION NO. 2078
..Accepting a Grant Deed
.(Robert and Virginia M. Flotten)
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."
a
C. C. 4-10"=61.
Page Six
.RESOLUTION.NO. 2078 --Continued
LOCATION.- Southeast corner of Richland and Service Avenues.
For street and highway purposes to be known as Richland and
Service Avenues and an easement for sanitary sewer purposes on
Service Avenue.
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,
Noes: None
Absents Councilman Snyder
Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Said resolution was given No. 2078.
PLANNING"COMMISSION
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Northeast corner of California
OF ANNEXATION NO. 169 Street and Francisquito
Avenue.
Councilman Towner requested this area be pointed out on the map,
• which was done by Mr. Joseph, and various explanations made rel-
ative to this matter.
There was no action necessary, no dissensions on the matter, and
a resolution,relative to this is to be presented at the next
.regular meeting.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
HEARINGS
DISTRICT A'11-58-3 Hearing of protests or objections
Sanitary Sewer District to the confirmation of assess-
ments to cover the installation
of sanitary sewers in the Baymar
Street and Norma Avenue Sewer District. Set for hearing this date
in the Notice of Filing Assessment and Diagram dated.March 17, 1961.
Mayor Heath.- This is the time and place for
the hearing of protests or
objections against the asoess-
ment for improvement of Baymar Street and other streets.
Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavits relative to this hearing
of Publication, Posting and Mailing.?
City Clerk Flotteno We have the affidavits.
.Mayor Heath: I will entertain a motion to
receive and file these affi-
davits.
C . C . 4-10-61 Page Seven
DISTRICT A,'11-58-3 - Continued
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that the affidavits be received and filed.
aMayor Heath-.
assessment, improvement as
Mr. City Clerk, have you
received any written protests
or objections against the
constructed, or the proceedings?
City Clerk Flotteno We have received three written
communications, two are in
relation to assessment amount,
and are from Hobart Chastain of 2036 Norma Avenue and Mr. and Mrs.
Gragson of 2032 Norma Avenue. The other communication is from the
Citizens National Bank, which indicates they are unable to relate
the card received to their files.
Mayor Heath-.
Does anyone desire to speak in
behalf of the written protests
received?
Both Mr. Chastain and.Mrs. Gragson were present in the audience and
they stated that they desired to have clarified to them what ap-
peared to be an inequality in the various assessments made in relation
of their properties to others in the immediate area.
Mr. Rosetti, the assessment engineer, took note of the individual
assessments and the area in question, and explained how the assess-
ment was arrived at to the protestants and to the City Council in
relation to the map. He stated that insofar as the bank communi-
cation was concerned, there is usually no difficulty in explaining
the situation and that the assessment number on this would have to
be reviewed and a letter written in explanation or a call made to
their real estate division.
In answer to a question.put by Mayor Heath as to whether it would
be necessary to keep this hearing open until these people (bank)
were notified of the particular lot this pertained to, the City
Attorney stated he did not think so since he did not feel this
particular communication was a protest in any way.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that the hearing be closed.
Mr. Price of 2018 Norma Avenue stated he had no protest, but had a
couple of questions in relation to when this assessment was due,
and how payable, and why a building permit was necessary to hook
up to the sewer at a cost to the owner.
.Mayor Heath explained this was actually an inspection fee for the
protection of the owner as well as the City in regard to correct
cesspool fill.
At this time there was no ruling on the protests, as it was indic-
ated that since those in protest did not seemfyto have a complete
clarification on this matter, Mr. Rosetti should explain this
matter to the parties, personally, plug answer Mr. Price's
questions, and then further action would'be taken after Mr. Rosetti
had discussed this with them.
0
i
C. C f-lo-61
DISTRICT.A'11=58,-3 - Continued
Page Eight
..:Council-, , pending the completion of this .discussion with Mr. Rosetti
.and_those.in protest, held it'in continuation and went on to the
next item for hearing on the Agenda.
HEARING OF PROTESTS ON LOCATION; East of the City
.EASTERLY ANNEXATION NO. 167 limits, south of the San Bern-
ardino Freeway.
Hearing of protest set for this date by Resolution No. 2034 adopted
by the City Council on February 14, 1961.
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and asked the City Clerk if he
had received the affidavits of. Publication and any other pertinent
information relative to this hearing.
City Clerk Flottene Let the r6cprd show that we have
received the Affidavits of Pub-
lication of the 'notice of this
Hearing, as published in the Pasadena Star News of March 9 and 16,
1961, and the West Covina Tribune of March 9 and 16, 1961. We have
the Affidavit of Compliance and Affidavit of Posting, and all are on
file.
Mayor Heath-.
City Clerk Flotten-.
sented and read by the City Clerk.)
Mayor Heath-.
City Clerk Flotten;
City Attorney Williams-.
Have there been any written pro-
tests received?
We have received one written
protest from the Forest Lawn
Association. (This was preen
How many registered voters are
within this annexation?
.Eleven.
Mr. Moore is here representing
Forest Lawn.
This proceeding covers exactly the same territory covered in the
proceedings initiated December 29, 1960, under Resolution No. 1997.
One of the objections to the proceeding, at that time, was that the
resolution adopted was done before the report of the County Bound-
ary Commission had been received, therefore, this second resolution
was adopted starting proceedings covering exactly the same terri-
tory.
As you recall, there was rather extensive evidence as to the annex-
ation and protest filed by Forest Lawn. Mr. Moore and I reached
an agreement concerning the evidence submitted in that it may be
considered in this proceeding. Mr. Moore has a written stipulation
to read into the record and to be filed.
Mr. Wm. B. Moore
O'Mel.veny and Myers
Representing Forest Lawn.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF
TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PURSUANT
TO RESOLUTION No 2034
c. c. 4-10-61
Page Nine
EASTERLY ANNEXATION NO. 167 Continued
�Mr. Wm. B. Moore Continued:
'.'Forest Lawn Company, a California corporation, and the City of
West Covina, a municipal corporation, hereby agree and stipulate,
by and through their respective counsel, as follows-,
In connection with the proposed annexation of territory to the City
of West Covina initiated by the City Council of the City of West
Covina pursuant to Resolution No. 2034, adopted February 14, 1961,
which said proposed annexation is known as "Easterly Annexation
District No. 167," it is deemed that all testimony, evidence,
.written documents, statements and arguments presented to the City
Council of the City of West Covina in connection with written pro-
tests filed pursuant to the annexation initiated under Resolution
No. 1997, be deemed to have been presented to the City Council of
the City of West Covina in connection with any written protests
filed or which may be filed by Forest Lawn Company pursuant to the
annexation initiated pursuant to Resolution No. 2034. Each party
hereto reserves the right to present additional testimony or
evidence in connection with written protests filed, or which may
be filed, pursuant to the annexation initiated under Resolution
No. 2034."
DATED this 10th day of April, 1961
City Attorney Williams. -
as formerly received and filed in
and to be considered pertinent and
HAROLD S. MORRISON
TOWSON T. MacLAREN
. and
OIMELVENY & MYERS
BENNET W. PRIEST
WILLIAM D. MOORE
MARSHALL A. RUTTER
By Bennett W. Priest
Attorneys for Forest Lawn Company
BURKE9 WILLIAMS & SORENSON
By Harry C. Williams
Attorneys for the City of
West Covina
This would indicate that each
party is deemed to have gone
through the same performance
all aspects of the annexation
that if this is agreeable to
the Council, a motion should be made and adopted that it will so
consider the other evidence presented.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that Council shall so consider the other evidence pre-
sented, and shall be received and filed for the record.
Mr. Moore: I will state, briefly, our
objection to this annexation,
since it does include an add-
itional item and eliminates an item included previously.
I
c. c. 4-10-61 Page Ten
EASTERLY ANNEXATION NO. 167 - Continued
Mr. Moore - Continued:
We feel a majority protest has been filed, as was the case previously,
and there is no jurisdiction for Council to proceed under the code
and the only proper thing is to terminate the present annexation
proceedings.
Additionally, in the prior annexation, there was objection because
the County Boundary Commission report had not been properly re-
ceived, although under this annexation it has been properly done.
However, in the event your first annexation under resolution No.
1997 were deemed validly initiated, even though the report not
properly received, then this was annexed at the time that was
pending and therefore is violating a section of the Government
Code.- If that is validated, then it overlaps this annexation.
Mayor Heath declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Towner: The only question before us is
whether a majority protest has
been filed, plus the additional
question of public policy, whether or not we should make the annex-
ation. Inasmuch as there is no difference in the evidence received
here than previously received, -I do not see how we can arrive at
any different result.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that the City Council finds that there has been no majority
protest received against this annexation.
INTRODUCTION
Ordinance approving Easterly
Annexation No. 167
The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA APPROVING THE ANNEX-
ATION TO AND INCORPORATING IN
AND MAKING A PART OF THE SAID
CITY OF WEST COVINA CERTAIN
UNINHABITED TERRITORY OUTSIDE
OF SAID CITY AND CONTIGUOUS
THERETO KNOWN AS EASTERLY
ANNEXATION NO. 167."
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be
waived.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that the ordinance be introduced.
ZONE CHANGE 'NO. 174
City Initiated
APPROVED AS AREA
DISTRICT IV
County Zone R-A 40,000 to City Zone
District IV - Resolution No. 1014.
LOCATION: Area within the
West Covina Easterly Annex-
ation District No. 165.
The Planning Commission denied
request to reclassify from
Area District III or Area
Appealed by the property owners on March 6,, 1961.
a
t�
c. co 4-lo-61
Page Eleven
ZONE CHANGE NO.. 174 --Continued
Hearing closed on March 27, 1961. Decision held over to this date
pending result of survey of annexation history by Council members.
,Councilman Towner.- I was not present at the hearing
on March 27, 1961. However, I
have read the Minutes of that
Council meeting, and the evidence introduced, and studied the materials
.presented to Council, and feel that I am fully informed to discuss
and vote on the issue.
Mayor Heath: A statement was voiced at the
end of the last meeting, "What
is the matter with Area.District
III? I live in Area District III and I am proud of it." Is that
correct, Mrs. Hammer?
Mrs. Hammer. - No, I live on an acre, but we
have that area right- up° the
street from us and in the study*
it was indicated this was level and Area III was quite acceptable
because it is all flat. However, we will go with III or IV.
Mayor Heath: I promised to bring up your
comment.
Mrs. Hammer.- We have seen homes on a third
of an acre and they are very
lovely to our point of view.
Councilman Towner.- We have a recommendation of
both the Planning Commission
and Planning Consultant, Mr.
Eisner, and both recommendations are that our determinings of this
matter be held over pending the master plan study and the over all
consideration of that area so it can be tied in with the over all
master plan. There is noted for public and Council Mr. Eisner's
letter of April 10, 1961.
Mayor Heath: There is a study under way of
the City, and he (Mr. Eisner)
was contacted to see if he
could throw some judgment or wisdom on the area district conducive
to this area and he sent a reply.
The City Clerk read the letter of Mr. Eisner.
City Manager Aiassa: According to the Eisner con-
tract, they are making a
study of the fringe area of
the City of a quarter of a mile and this annexation falls within
that area.
Mayor Heath:
When will the study be com-
pleted on this area?
City Manager Aiassa: We could not pin Mr. Eisner
down on that issue, but if
Council so desired, we could
make that request with Mr. Eisner immediately as to when he could
do it.
The-City'Clerk read the resolution stating reasons for denial by
the P'lanning-'Commission.
C. C. 4-10-61
Page Twelve
ZONE CHANGE NO. 174 - Continued
Councilman Towner: I think the Planning Commission
action was well taken. This
was a City initiated matter as
a normal course of procedure, and was not an application by the
people involved, except as an appeal to the Council.
I feel that it -is entirely possible that some other zoning may be
eventually granted in this particular area, depending on the
studies of this, but at this particular time to make cohesive the
master plan taking in the aspects of the entire City, I would go
with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Planning
Consultant.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
the action of the Planning Commission be upheld for the reasons
stated in their Resolution No. 1014 and'that the subject zone change
be denied.
Councilman Barnes: I think it is fine if we can
wait for the Eisner report, and
I would agree with the Plan-
ning Commission recommendation.: However, we do have the people in
this area to think about and I am thinking that if they do come in
for subdivision, the only thing we could do, if we hold this off for
a report, is not to subdivide their property until we make up our
minds. Is this what we are actually saying? I would like to ask
the City Attorney about this.
City Attorney Williams: The property could not be sub-
divided into lots of less than
40,000 square feet unless and
until a zone change is imposed on the entire annexation or until a
particular person wanting to subdivide asks for a zone change for
his particular property, which would have to be acted upon.
Councilman Barnes: Would we have 40,000 square
feet lots for subdivision?
City Attorney Williams: Yes, so long as it stays in
40,000.
Councilman Brown: As stated at the public hearing
and recorded in the adjourned
meeting of the City Council on
June 6, 1960, page 4, my question was "What area district would
this come into the City?" and the answer by. Mr. Joseph, our Plan-
ning Director, was "All annexation areas come in under Area Dis-
trict III and then the City can rezone under any other district
they see fit." All through the comments on pages 4 and 5, it was
insinuated this be Area District IV. It was not only my opinion
this come;in as Area District IV. Councilman Towner comments, "I
would certainly go. along with Councilman Brown that this be brought
in under the highest restriction in the City, which is Area Dis-
trict IV." Because the rules changed after the time of the voting
and hearing on this, I do not see how you can change this on these
people who, I think, are entitled to Area District IV now.
c. C. 4-lo-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 174 - Continued
Page Thirteen
Mayor Heath.- I think at that time, that was
the ordinance, but since then
the ordinance has changed. I
think we should be cognizant of the fact that at our last meeting
some people were very much interested in Area District III, others
were interested in Area District IV and some person or persons
were interested in Area District V. -If wego to Area District IV,
I think that somebody is going to get hurt,i. and if we go to Area
.Distribt III, someone else will be disturbed. I think the only
fair way to do this, since there are so many different opinions,
is to leave it entirely up to the advisor and after we get advice
from the advisor.... if he comes up with part being III, IV or V,
or whatever he comes up with..,.I think this would give us some
background on which to make our judgment in light of the fact there
are so many different opinions of the people who live in that area
right now.
If we do go ahead we do not know if we are satisfying the majority
of the people in the area, and the only fair way is to listen to
Mr. Eisner.
Councilman Brown: That may be true, but the insin-
uations from all the Minutes are
in relation to Area District IV
and the only question raised to Area District IV was by Councilman
Snyder, who wanted to know if the people could have horses .... if
they could continue to have horses in Area District IV.
• I feel these people were told this would be Area District IV and
.we are changing the rules in the ballgame after it is started. I
do not think it is fair for these people to have come into the City
and we change the rules of ter it.
Councilman Towner-. lWhen was the ordinance changed
as to what the property was
brought into the City under?
.What was the existing ordinance at the time this property was
brought in? Is that information available? It was my under-
standing at the time this was annexed that the ordinance pro-
vided it come in at the existing County zoning and remain as
such until practicable that the City change it. If that were
not true and the old ordinance was used and that property came
in at the highest available City zoning, which is IV., then it
automatically would have been in IV and there was no reason for
hearing on it.
'Councilman Barnes: I.would withdraw my second to
the motion made by Councilman
Towner, at this moment, be-
cause it would appear there might have been some statements made
that would commit us to the zoning.
Councilman Towner: I think that by summarizing.it
rather than stating my actual
words would give a better
interpretation of what -I was actually saying and that is, that
this should come in at the highest available City zoni�ig, and
this would certainly be the intent, and I was under the impression
this was the ordinance at the time. I think, however, we were
under a misapprehension as to what the ordinance provided and that
was, it retain County zoning until acted upon.
c. c. 4,-lo-61
Page Fourteen
ZONE CHANGE NO. 174 - Continued
,.,Mayor Heath.- The fact that one or two
Councilmen, in testimony,
Made the statement they felt
this should be Area District IV does not mean this is the consensus
of the entire Council and wasn't contained within the motion or
Minutes that this would come under any zoning at all, so I do not
-think we can make any judgment on the basis of the statements of
one or two members of Council.
Councilman Brown:
annexed areas, it would come in
ordinance read at that time.
Mayor Heath:
Councilman Brown:
Mayor Heath:
It was not only myself and the
other Councilman, but Mr. Joseph
states that by ordinance on
under Area III. This is what our
Then there would have been no
reason for hearing.
Except discussion indicated we
wanted this to come in under
Area IV.
Then this would be contrary to
the ordinance.
Councilman Towner stated he would withdraw his previous motion.
• A motion by Councilman Towner to hold this matter over to the next
regular meeting in order to have the staff advise Council as to
-whether or not the existing ordinance at the time provided whether
this come in at the existing County zoning or come in at some City
zoning failed for a lack of a second.
Councilman Towner stated he made this motion in that if there was
an ordinance at the time indicating that at -the time of annexation
this would come in under a certain zoning, then there was no reason
for holding a hearing, but if it came in under existing County
zoning, pending a City zoning, then there was a purpose for hearing,
and since this information was not available at this time, it should
be held over.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
Zone Change No. 174 be given Area District IV zoning.
Motion tied on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes
Noes: Councilman Towner, Mayor Heath
Absent: Councilman Snyder
Councilman Towner: My understanding is that if
Council hangs up on a 2-2
vote, the Commission action
stands.
Mayor.Heath: With the information we have
I before us in the approved
Minutes, it states that any
-area annexting to the City comes in under A!rba III. Under that
present information and present facts before us, this automatically
comes in under Area III. The motion is then asking us to violate
our own ordinance.
. 'I
S
c. c. 4=10-61
.Page Fifteen
,Z.ONE `CHANGE""NO.: 174 Continued
Councilman Brown: If you follow the Minutes, you
will find that we discussed only
Area IV which was our highest
area at the time of this annexation. The ordinance hadn't been
changed to include IV, it only included III, and it was strictly
the intent of Council to tie people here that it would be IV, which
was the reason for the motion.
Councilman Towner: We seem to have reached an
impasse. We have an absent
member of Council, we are
uncertain what the ordinance provided at the time of the annexa-
tion, so it would seem we might as well hold it over to find out
what the law is and what Councilman Snyder's position might be.
Councilman Brown: This might look like an impasse,
but I think that Council stuck
its neck out when they prac-
tically,told them this will be IV and then we say we are going to
make it -something else.
Councilman Barnes: I didn't withdraw my second on
the previous motion other than
for the reason that, while it
is very possible that we could have some 40,000 square foot lots up
there, maybe somebody in this area may desire to subdivide and would
be entitled to what Council stated at the time of hearing, and we
should be honorable enough to follow what we said we would do at
the time of that hearing. As Mr. Williams pointed out, you could
follow the same proceeding and put it in whatever area district we
wanted to in the same manner we make findings on Area IV. I do
not think we have a real problem to raise or lower the zoning.
Councilman Brown:
Councilman Barnes:
this is its general purpose, and it
through these proceedings.
Mayor Heath:
area so as to need zoning on it?
That is correct. We can zone
it III or V, but I think we
are morally obligated to give
them Zone IV at this time.
We are doing a general plan to
find out what zoning we need
in certain areas, and I think
is only proper that we go
Mrs. Hammer, do you know of
any contemplated changes to
take place in this annexation
Mrs. Hammer; No, I do not know of any.
Speaking for myself, my hus
band's health is very poor and
a full acre is a lot of work. As long as we are living on that
acre, nothing is going to happen on it, but if something does
happen, our acre would look like the others with just weeds and
nothing of advantage to the City. You can have well regulated small
parcels of property as well as large ones. I do not know of anyone
who contemplates any change, but speaking for myself, I would like
to know ,fat in the event I am forced to sell, that we could put a
house in the back which would in no way detract from the -over all
picture of the neighborhood. In lots over 300 foot long, you could
put another house back there -and nobody would even notice it there.
C. C. 4-10-61
Page Sixteen
ZONE CHANGE NO. 174- Continued
Mayor Heath: If this were held off until we
received the advice of the con-
sultant relative to his study
of the area, would this inconvenience you in any way? It will be
completed in eight months.
Mrs. Hammer: -I do not think it fair for this
reason. We were annexed last
October, and you could carry
this thing on and on and make us wait for area VI. It may sound
far-fetched, but I feel you should see our point of view in that
we have waited long enough and we indicated we would abide by the
zoning of West Covina when we were annexed, but not until more
studies were made ... you can carry thesd studies on and on. We
would like a decision tonight.
Mayor Heath: Is there anyone else in this
annexation who it might incon-
venience to hold it over?
Mr. Cheesebrough: It would be inconvenient to me
very much. I am negotiating
with the County now for acquisi-
tion.of right of way of Grand Avenue, and it is vital to me that a
decision be rendered on this. Maybe two weeks from now Councilman
Barnes couldn't be at a meeting, then it would be held over again.
I think if the people are willing to go along with Area IV they
• should be given a decision tonight.
•Councilman Towner: I would point out that this
rezoning, if it is rezoning,
was initiated by the City and
I was under the impression that this was the ordinance under which
it came in .... existing County zoning .... and as soon as practicable
we would study it and put some City zoning on it. However, we may
be mistaken and it came in under Area IV, if we had IV at the time,
and I think we did, and if that is true, it should retain that
character, but I do not feel I can act until we find out the legal
situation.
Councilman Barnes: I would ask Mrs. Hammer that
if we gave this Area IV and
Mr. Eisner found it should be
Area District V, would you be willing to abide by this?
Mrs. Hammer: Yes, although I really believe
that Mr. Eisner, if he is a
good planner.... anyone in his
right mind .... would not say this should stay at 40,000 square feet
with the freeway and Grand Avenue in there, and I think he will
come up with Area District III rather than even Area IV.
Mayor -Heath called a recess. Council reconvened at 9:4o P. M.
7
0
s
C. C. 4-10-61 Page Seventeen
ZONE CHANGE NO. 174 - Continued
The City -Attorney read the ordinances and change of ordinance as
-discussed by Council, relative to this original hearing.
Councilman Brown: Although the change of ordin-
ance was probably in effect
before the hearings on this
matter, the insinuations that it would be Area IV are still there
and I haven't changed my mind, because I think that,we morally ob-
ligated ourselves to give these people Area District IV.
Councilman Towner: I still think it would be more
practicable to change this after
we had the opinion of the Plan-
ning Consultant as recommended by the Commission.
Motion by Councilman Brown; seconded by Councilman Barnes, that Zone
Change No. 174, City Initiated, be granted as Area District IV,
because the Minutes of June 6, 1960 indicated to the people living
within the annexed area that it would come in as Area District IV.
Councilman Barnes: I think the Planning Commission
was not only studying Area Dis-
trict IV, but they had before
them a map of Area District III and IV.
Mayor Heath: I feel our insinuations were
that the property be brought
in at the highest zoning we
have. We have Area District IV. We do not have Area District V.
I would like to hold this over until Mr. Eisner's study is finished,
but we have evidence that these people in the area are interested in
obtaining a decision now. In the light of that, we are going to
have to go to the highest zoning available at the present time.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: Councilman Towner
Absent: Councilman Snyder:
CONTINUATION OF DISTRICT Mr. Rosetti stated that he had
A111-58-3 PROTEST HEARING explained the matter of the
assessments to those in pro-
test in the clearest way he
felt it could be presented, although he did not know if the explan-
ation had been considered satisfactory to the interested parties.
Mayor Heath:
Is there still a protest on
this?
Mrs. Gragson stated in the affirmative.
Mayor Heath:
Mr. Rosetti:
Is the other gentleman, Mr.
Chastain, still in protest?
No, I believe he was satisfied.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that -the protests on District A'11-58-3 be overruled.
•
0
c. c. 4-lo-61
RESOLUTION NO. 2075
Confirming Assessment on
District A111-58-3
ADOPTED
City Clerk Flotten:
Mayor Heath:
Page Eighteen
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA CONFIRMING THE ASSESS-
MENT OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR
BAYMAR STREET AND OTHER
STREETS." (District A111-58-3)
This resolution contains the
statement that all protests are
overruled.
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, Mayor Heath
Noes.- None
Absent: Councilman Snyder
Said resolution was given No. 2075.
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 258 LOCATION.- South California
(Ruby B. Bowker, et al)- Avenue, between California and
HELD OVER Glendora Avenues.
Planning Commission denied re-
quest for the adoption of precise plan by Resolution No. 1015 of
March 1, 1961. Appealed by the applicant on March 8, 1961.
The City Clerk stated that the record should show that notice of
this hearing was published in the West Covina Tribune on March 30,
1961 and 32 notices had been mailed to the owners of property within
300-foot radius. The resolution of the Planning Commission was
read.
Mayor Heath opened the.public hearing and stated all those desiring
to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk.
Communications relative to this matter were read, for the record,
by the City Clerk.
Mr. W. K. Bowker: In presenting the precise plan,
I would point out that this is
a preliminary study and the
final architects draft will be present for consideration if the
plan is approved.
The east -west street is necessary to the property and is not pro-
posed as a commercial street, but for residences only.
R-3 facing R-3 is preferential zoning for both financial and econ-
omic reasons. Where R-1_faces R-3, it tends to detract from both
the private home owner who does not like to face apartments and
vice -versa. Financial companies do not like it while R-1 backing
to R-3 is considered good.
c. c. 4-z0-61
Page Nineteen
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 258 - Continued
Mr. W. K. Bowker - Continued-
M Letters presented and read into the record clearly point out the
cooperation and thinking of the neighbors all but one being long
time residents and property owners in West. Covina. They are desir-
ous of getting property zoned as indicated.
Mr. B. Sheridan We would go on record of being
Representing Von's Market in favor of this -precise plan,
mainly to capitalize on the use
of the street which we had
privately constructed and which we have since had to close, and
which has shut off the west side of the population of the City for
good access to our market and shopping center.
The zoning plan before you is reasonable and I would reaffirm the
remarks that Mr. Roberts, our district supervisor of the area, will
have to make in relation to remarks received from customers since
the half street was closed.
Mr. Roberts-. Since the half street has been
closed off, the business has
suffered a decline from about
8 to 10%, whereas our store at Amar Road, -and at the Plaza has kept
on an equal basis, and suffered no decline such as at this locationo
I questioned a few people in this store shortly after this road was
closed, and their query was why we had closed this street since they
could.not gain an easy access to the store as previously.
There are now a series of left-hand turns in order to come into the
market and we do not feel this is the way it should be.
Mr. R. Broadwell I am one of the property owners
25 Campana Flores �bf the shopping center and oper-
ate the nursery now in that
center.
It appears quite definitely beyond a doubt in anyone's mind that the
concern in this precise plan isn't whether it is the plan itself,
but a determining on the part of the Commission that the people
west of Glendora Avenue should have a.good access into Von's
-Market Area. There were objections raised to thisstreet and on
record is Mr. Joseph's statement that Von's would have a back -door
frontage, whatever that means. Remarks of this kind are ridicu-
lous.
The last time I appeared before the Commission, Mr. Jackson remarked
that our shopping center was getting too big and that it had gone
beyond the original concept for this center. Therefore, after being
forced to put in parking area for 600 cars, with an alley going
completely around the center and parking for employees in the rear,
now.Mr. Jackson of the Planning Commission thinks this is too big
and indicates that probably C-1 should be momma-papa stores, but
they can't exist unless a major use is put in. West of Glendora
• they shop in this center, at the Plaza or go to La Puente.
..I think the question here is are we going to be allowed to get
into this center, or are they going to be.kept out of it? There
has been one failure of a hardware store,there in the past few
weeks and this big parking center is a ghost center in West Covina
in that while others are full, this is not because cars can't get
in and can't get out.
C. C. 4-10-61 Page Twenty
PRECISE'PLAN'OF DESIGN NO. 258 - Continued
Mr. Broadwell - Continued;
This can't remain simply a ghost area. Some use must be made of it
and what will it be? Maybe something far less desirable than a
49 first class shopping center.
Mr. Frank Bowker The reason all these property
,Laguna Beach owners were included in this
application rather than just
the strip we own was done at
the insistence of the Planning.Director, and we went to considerable
time and expense to get them all to agree with one plan. The Com-
mission didn't see fit to approve this plan, but it is the first time
all the property owners agreed to a plan and the only time there was
ability to get a plan started to take care of the back of those prop-
erties.
Should the precise plan and zoning be denied on the whole parcel?
Would it be proper for us to come in with our own area, leaving the
rest out, which we would have done if the Planning Director hadn't
asked us to get all of the others together.
City Attorney Williams-.
that and consider the remaining area
I think so. There has been a
request for dropping a portion
of it, and Council can grant
and continue with the remainder.
Mr. Bowker-. As to economics, all are inter-
• ested in getting as much sales
tax into the City and not
driving it into La Puente. It has been indicated that Von's can
withdraw permission to use the strip. They cannot, because there
is a mutual recorded easement to both using the 30-foot strip and
it would not be right to have another 30-foot easement to the gar-
ages. The garages will create a buffer zone between the R-3 and
.the back of the shopping center.
I understand the County Flood Control improved a right-of-way for
a 30-foot storm drain.
If you do not grant use of that street, the County, or someone
else, has to pay for that right-of-way.
Mr. W. Hand
948 California Avenue
before and that was turned
draw from this application
is now. I do not know the
I am one of the original appli-
cants on that No. 170. We have
tried for a long time ... about
six years ago we applied once
down .... and now we would like to with -
and leave our zone R-A which I think it
procedure on that.
City Attorney Williams-. I do not think there is any
procedure described in the
• ordinance, although some say
the applicant up to and including appeal may withdraw application.
• However, Council may honor the request for withdrawal so far as
the precise plan is concerned.
As to zoning, you can go ahead and approve it in any way because
Council can initiate that anyway.
49
e. c. 4-lo-61
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 258 - Continued
City Attorney Williams - Continued:
You have an owner's request for withdrawal and if
adopted, you would have the ordinance on that area
the precise plan. It can be done -in the manner of
night.
Mrs. W. Louis:
now is all lef t-hand turns and I
IN OPPOSITION
Page Twenty-one
the zone change is
and that part of
the request to -
I shop at Von's and like the
market, and from where I live.
the only way to get into Von's
resent having to drive that far.
Mrs. Barbara Gaines When this zoning was first per-
914 W. Barbara Avenue mitted, our original objection
included the fact that it was
spot zoning, but since then you
have pretty well convinced us that some apartment zoning around the
commercial area isn't spot zoning, but a buffer zone. But so far
a's a development such as this, it goes beyond a buffer zone and
becomes spot zoning. It is no longer a strip, it becomes a spot
and we abject to that.
The street that goes in from California to the commercial area was
objected to, and the use of it was overruled, and, although you may
not be interested in what we have to say on that, we state it is the
same thing as previously, even though it is a convenience in getting
into the area, but it wasn't put in legally and there were not per-
mits granted for it, and we had no opportunity to object before it
was put in.
The commercial area at Tasti-Freeze on Glendora, if this street
were allowed to go all the way through, if it were made into a
regular street, it would allow the cars at Tasti-Freeze to barely
skid in with little or no room for use as parking area and they
would all have to be out in back after that.
So far as carrying commercial traffic to and from the commercial
area, and I do not mean the big trucks, although that is an ob-
jection, but commercial traffic would be going back and forth.
It is difficult to get into Von's. However, once they put in a
signal at -Vine,, it wouldn't really be so difficult. Speaking from
experience, I shop at Von's and have to make four left-hand turns
myself, and it really isn't so difficult or bad. The biggest
trouble is getting out on Glendora from Merced, but with a traffic
signal, you would have the opportunity to move out into traffic
then.
You gentlemen had a meeting with the Commission and went over this
area and we felt then that we did not particularly like what you
provided, because it was still more apartments than we felt we
wanted or needed, but this goes beyond that and is a solid field
of apartments from one end to the other.
�il
C. C. 4-lo-61
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 258 - Continued
Resident of
844 W. Barbara Avenue
rather than an illegal
of homes just come in
other area can be made
tity of apartments.
Page Twenty-two
There seems to be a great deal
of confusion over this street.
What we have here tonight is
the development of apartments
road through there. There has been a tract
at Merced, Glendora, and California, and this
into something more useful than a large quan-
My objections from previous meetings still stand.
IN REBUTTAL
Mr. F. Bowker: I would point out the request
for withdrawals from this appli-
cation, so the only parcels
affected within this area is this land and 165 feet of this street.
If we do not have the east -west street through there, we can't have
a street to Merced, but there will be no dedication given and we can't
get financing for R-1 here.
The R-3 is facing R-3 and starts far enough back to get a good devel-
opment and access to garages with them, providing a buffer from
existing alley and it makes sense.
Mr. Sheridan° There was a statement made of
the legality in the construction
. of this street with no oppor-
tunity to speak against it, but,I am wondering what the objections
would have been or would there have been any basis for objection at
that time? It may only be illegal in name, but not by construction
and we have offered to make a core test showing that we used the
minimum street standards of the City here. We feel this meets the
standards of the City, but if it were found it was not, we would
certainly bring this street up to standard in any way that it was
found necessary.
There being no further testimony presented, the hearing was
declared closed.
Councilman Towner: In answer to the question of
what portion of this precise
plan is left after withdrawal
of other applicants, it would seem that it covers only the Bowker
property and that portion of the property directly across the
east/west street from the Bowker property.
It is my understanding there is some dedicated street already in
the area, and in pointing this out, it would seem it is a contin-
uation of Wescove Place from Glendora.
Councilman Barnes:
•
• Mr. Bowker.-
Councilman Barnes:
Doesn't this precise plan say
you want R-3 on the west and
R-1 facing California?
That is correct.
Wouldn't it be a portion of
that street going northly?
e
a
G. C. 4-30-61
r:PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 258 - Continued
Mr. Bowker:
Councilman Townes':
Mr. Joseph:
City Clerk Flotten:
Mayor Heath:
City Clerk Flotten:
Councilman.Towner:
City Clerk Flotten.-
Councilman Towner:
City Clerk Flotten:
Councilman Towner. -
Mr. Joseph:
Councilman Towner:
Mr. Joseph:
in an alternate conforming to the
Planning Commission at that time.
Page Twenty-three
This street would go in where
it is already dedicated and
you would have R`3 to R-3 with
an R-1 line.
Mr. Bowker indicated an existing
dedication on this property?
We have no record of an existing
dedication. There is nothing in
our books of acceptance although
it might have been offered.
I believe that shows on the old,
old maps, somewhere possibly
around 1942 or 1943.
Do you have a record of this?
They do exist. We have checked
them before.
Are we assessing them on a tax
basis?
We haven't, and I believe it
has been existing since the
late 401s.
Can you tell us whether the
street coincides with the
precise plan street?
That I could not.
What are the depth of the lots
on the east and west sides of
the proposed street?
205 x 175 and 218 x 205.
Depth of lot on California?
That is 135 feet. When Mr.
Bowker came in with a precise
plan, we suggested he bring
lot depth suggested by the
Councilman Barnes: There seems to be a question
of this old street on the plan
which doesn't conform to the
street plan we considered going north. I didn't know there was an
existing easement for this street.
Mr. Bowker:
I would stand on that as being
on record.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that Precise Plan of Design No. 258 be held over for a
full report from the staff on the matter of the street dedication.
c . c . 4-10-61
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 258 - Continued
Councilman Towner:
find out where it is.
Page Twenty-four
This would be appropriate since
if the owner has already dedi-
cated a street there we must
This is a real puzzler. We have a situation where the Planning
Commission by planning study 45-X-1 indicates how they would like
to have it go and this is interesting because it is different than
the normal planning condition.
We also have the problem of a street going to Merced, as now we do
not have th4t property available any longer.
The alternate proposed by the applicant is better from the planning
standpoint, as it looks better with R-1 backing to R-3, but there
is the half street going to California which has been indicated
should not go in, plus he has more R-3.
Mayor Heath: I would like to state that in
my.opinion that street going
through to California is a
necessity for this market. The record will show I have always been
in favor of that street in there, and I think the market area needs
it and that the people to the west of that shopping center need it.
We have uncovered information here which we didn't have before the
Planning Commission. I think they should have the benefit of this
• information if there is a study to be made°and send it back to them
for study in the light of this additional information.
Councilman Brown: I do not know that this is
actually new evidence. It is
said there is a dedicated
street area in there and they say the plan is based on that street.
I do not think it is necessary to refer it back at this point to
the Commission, we should take a look at it, and if there is a
street and area land -locked -there is little you can do but let them
come out to California.
Councilman Towner:
find out where the street is and
should do that, I think.
Mayor Heath:
I think that before we
Commission they should
the new facts.
We should take the procedure
that reaches the quickest de -
decision on this. If we can
handle it at Council level, we
Suppose we make the study and
find there is a street in that
area and then study the.plan?
adopt the plan over the objections of the
have the right to re -study the plan with
• Councilman Towner: That's true if they do have
something different than the
recommendation, but as of right
now we do not know what we are going to do.
Councilman Barnes: Weren't these two plans already
before the Commission? I think
Alternate No. l was in accord-
ance with Mr. Bowker's idea as the street dedication exists at this
time and, -Alternate No. 2 was -as the Planning Commission recommended.
C. C. 4-30-61
Page Twenty-five
'PRECISE -PLAN OF'.:DESIGNNO. 258 - Continued
Mayor Heath: There are a number of things here
which change the area of under-
standing. It is cutting down to
.15% of what was originally proposed, there is a possibility of a
dedicated street. This all throws a different light on the street
going through to California. I think this is all new information
the Planning Commission should be advised of.
Councilman Towner: The point is well taken. We
have to get some access into
this market area and we hoped
to get it by Merced Avenue, but we may have to get it the other way
because of a lack of alternatives, but we should do something.that
gets the. quickest results. However, we do not know just at this
point what is going to happen here or what information will be
gathered on this.
Mayor Heath called a recess. Council reconvened at 10:50 P. M.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that Agenda items after Item 12 be continued until a week
from tonight, other than those particular items that have to be
taken care of this evening. Mayor Heath voted "No."
In reference to Item 13 and 14 on the Agenda, Mr. Harold Johnson
stated that he noted Zone Change No. 178 and Unclassified Use
Permit No. 53, but nothing shown relative to the Precise Plan
which he believed was also before Council.
The City Clerk indicated that the zone change appears before the
Council automatically, whereas the Precise Plan does not, as the
ruling on the precise plan becomes final before the Planning Com-
mission unless brought up by Council or objected to in one way or
another. The Use.Permit was appealed.
ZONE: ' CHANGE NO. 179 LOCATION: Southeast corner of
UNCLASSIFIED USE:PERMITNO. 54 Glendora and Service Avenues,
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN N.O. 264 bounded on the east by Valinda
.,(Richard M. and Barbara J. Kline) Avenue.
ITEMS,STILL.PENDING BEFORE
COUNCIL:BY REASON OF TIE Request to reclassify from
..VOTES Zone R-A Potential R-P to Zone
C-1, denied by the Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1020;
request for Service Station denied by Resolution No. 1021 ` request
for adoption of Precise Plan of Design denied by Resolution No.
1022. Appealed by applicant on March 17, 1961.
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.
,c. C. 4-10-61
Page Twenty-six
ZONE-CHANGE_`NO.' 178 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54, PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN NO. 264 --,-Continued.,.,
The City Clerk stated that the.record should show that notice of this
'public hearing had been published In the West Covina Tribune on
March 30, 1961, and that 71 notices had been mailed to property
owners within the 300-foot radios on March 29, 1961.
The resolutions of the Planning Commission were read.
.'IN FAVOR
)4r. E. Samuels In order to try to expedite
333 N. Citrus Avenue this hearing, we will stick
.West Covina as close to the presentation
of facts as possible with as
little comment as possible.
We will open with six statements of fact leading to an inevitable
conclusion. The subject property is a 16 acre parcel with the
northerly portion zoned C-1 under Ordinance No.
691 adopted Feb-
ruary 27, 1961 and becoming effective March 29, 1961. The remainder
of the property is zoned potential R-P. The use of R-P for parking
in conjunction with adjacent C-1 is permissible under the zoning
laws of the City of West Covina, and the required parking ratio for
6-1 in the City is approximately two to one. The right to use R-3
for subject parking has been just confirmed by the Planning Com-
mission in the approval of a zone and precise plan in the civic
center area east of Service and south of Cameron. One conclusion
• from these facts is that this parcel is eligible by the laws of the
City for the.development of five acres of commercial building on
the northerly portion of the property with approximately 10 acres
of parking on C, the remainder.
Bearing in mind what is permissible, we have the following facts.
The proposed building area is reduced from the permissible 5 to 3
acres. All street improvements will be installed immediately and
dedicated to the City. Value of land improvements will be in the
amount of $75,000.00 instead of the piece -meal improvements you
will have if you split ownership or delay on street improvement
for future development. You will have a strip commercial area
with a dozen small stores and incompatible mixtures, whereas we
offer a far more desirable development of a well planned building
for a single tenancy. The proposed plan and building offers an
attractive appearance, improved service and a substantially greater
tax return to the City. The proposed plan upgrades the use of the
property from that now permissible, but it doesn't alter the char-
acter of those uses, since the proposed use is no different than
what is now allowed. Why, then, is this application necessary?
In order to achieve a better and higher use for the property, it is
.necessary to re -arrange the relationship betweOn parking and com-
mercial buildings. We are asking for approval on an improved pat-
tern and not any change in use.
• After months of 'study and work by the Planning Commission and Council.,
results were set forth in a declaration of planning principles of the
aims and ambitions of West Covina to be used as a guide for planning.
I would draw your attention to the section which states that the
City should continue to be promoted as the commercial center of the
San Gabriel Valley, atid1fiPst'_;- portion of item 3 in that West
Covina needs to create a balancing tax structure. These appli-
cationsbefore you are in complete accord with the declaration of
your planning principles. Every large self-contained single tenancy
C. C. 4-10-61 q Page Twenty-seven
...-ZONE CHANGE NO. 179, UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54, PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN NO. 264 - Continued
Mr. E. Samuels - Continued-,
store persuaded to move into West Covina contributes to the aim
of its being the commercial center of the San Gabriel Valley.
This is an aim that will not be furthered by a commercial strip
development.
The Cal Stores will have 300 employees with a full union pay scale -
of one million dollars and would be contributing to the expressed
need for places of employment. The only possible means to a bal-
anced tax structure in an area over balanced with residential is
to use the vacant land that remains in the City and Cal Stores
would contribute to that tax structure and we have tax figures of
interest.,
The Cal Stores in Lakewood gross 18 million, we expect 15 million
here, so we have used 12 million. The estimated cost in land im-
provement.and fixtures is 1-1/2 million, including March 1 inven-
tory, and we arrived at $950,000.00 assessed valuation. With the
tax rate of 8.8776 there is estimated taxes in the amount of
---$84,337.20. We have estimated 12 million dollars gross, less
non-taxable items in the amount of three million which comes to
a 4% sales tax on 9 million, which gives estimated taxes in the
amount of,$360,000.0ao/ plus the estimate of $84,337.20 gives an
......,,-estimated public income, not including federal excise taxes of
..--$444,337'.20. We further show the distribution of the estimated
income between City, County, schools, flood control, sanitation
district, public library and State of California and to the right
is the equivalent to'a 6% tax return on invested capital showing
that in order for this much income to be produced, if someone
were to make a public gift of 6% return on bonds, stocks or other
investments amounting to $444,337.20, that gift would have to be
almost 7-1/2 million dollars. This is what is proposed for City,
County, schools, etc.,
to receive an income off this property,
which now lies vacant, of 6% on 7-1/2 million dollars.
I would like to state at this time that insofar as the refusal
of the Planning Commission to approve the Unclassified Use Per-
mit, the Planning Commission was rather hard put to find excuses
for that, and the denial of these applications is to repudiate
the declaration of the principles set forth and to discourage
properties for growth in the City in a field where it is most
needed.
The Planning Commission did not feel this gave sufficient pro-
tection to the property owners on the south, but declined to
give any idea what would give sufficient protection. In order
to encourage the developer of this property, and the tenants,
a.well known planner was engaged, Mr. D. Cunningham, who made
..a.further study and he has some suggestions and conditions which
might be imposed to overcome any objections.
• I would like to make the point that the lease which Cal Stores
have executed gives the right to cancellation :of this lease unless
• this --is ready to start for construction on June 1.
C . C . 4-10-61
Page Twenty-eight
ZONE CHANGE NO. 179, UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54 PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN N0. 2 - Continued
--'Mr. R. Kline The owners and operators of -
-941,3 Sawyer Cal Stores have been in bus -
Los Angeles iness in Long Beach for 30
odd years and are civic minded
members of the community and
are among the most successful businessmen. These gentlemen operate
in Cal Stores, one of the finest of its kind in America, and it is -
an unquestionable fact they are ethical businessmen, can run a bus®
..mess successfully and gave me, as a developer, the chore to find
for them a locality which I could in good consciousness bring to
-ahem for approval, and it was pointed out that the San Gabriel
Valley had a great potential not yet really developed and extending
many years beyond the present.
I came to West Covina and liked it and was shown various properties
and found this piece of property which I believe is located to bring
the greatest good to the community and to them, and they will do it
successfully.
Mx. S. O'Dell In our business we have been
2400 Carson Blvd. approached by many communities
Lakewood who are interested in operations
similar to ours and needless to
say, because of Mrs. Samuels
and Mr. Noonan in bringing us to this community and showing us the
wonderful growth here, that we have become very enthusiastic about
• this area and in becoming a part of it. We feel we can justify
being here in many ways, and our organization is principally a
local community type of thing, in that we actively participate in
the community and,interview people from the area, and operate
through local people of this community with the exception of the
top echelon.
Mr. Don Cunningham I was engaged by the developer
3723 Wilshire Blvd. and Cal Stores to review this
plan and I feel there are some
matters that were not properly
covered before the Planning Commission, and I think we can do that
now.
It was indicated that the applicant supply sufficient justification
for the extensive zoning change requested. There is justification
in this particular sense, which refers to economic justification.
Mrs. Samuels gave some of the revenue producing properties of this
store for the City, and they are not out of line, and I would like
to show where that money will come from. I have here a map showing
a 5 mile radius around this center, which is West Covina, so the
area picks up Covina, a portion of Glendora, two-thirds of Azusa,
LaPuente, Irwindale and possible areas of other communities or post
office addresses. A store like this does draw from a 5-mile radius
and will compete beyond the boundaries of the City for business.
Outside this 5-mile radius is the center which includes Sears, then
• you have the Eastland area and there may be other such areas or
centers which serve,a department store type of trade, but nothing
to the extent that Sears or the May Company does or that this
applicant before you will do,.
You have about as much R-P in the City as you are ever going to
need. What -we are really asking for in this application is parking
privileges-and'a C-1 store in a different location, size and shape
than is shown here.
a
•
•
C. C. 4-10.-61,
:ZONE` CHANGE NO. 17f,
OF DESIGN,.NO: 2 ,. .... -
Mr. Don Cunningham-- Continued:
USE PERMIT NO
Page --Twenty-nine
PRECISE PLAN
.I am.noa:suggesting.a new precise plan, but it is my understanding
"that the .Council can attach additional conditions on the original
plan°. This,.in._,my,opinion, now represents a somewhat better use of
;the. and than what is up here on the board. You will notice the
build:ing,is located quite close to Valinda and the south boundary
of. :the property. The alleys were proposed to come up parallel from
..Glendora and,turn in Holly Place and interconnected by a cross street.
I,d:.o,'.not think, as a planner, that a plan of that kind helps your
:�::a.pplicant, nor the property owners., What I would do is suggest these
streets be brought to a normal cul-de-sac, alleys be turned to go out
-to Valinda and Glendora. I do not think this alley should be turned
out at such a sharp angle, it possibly should be at a 90 degree
...angle, I would suggest a series of lots of this kind which would
enable, when you finish out the cul-de-sac, to provide new housing
..adjacent -to any existing homes southerly and removes the objection
of the people who live down here. It gives the City income pro-
ducing property instead of asphalt to sweep and maintain.
There would be 80 feet between existing homes and any adjacent
parking lot. There would be a 40-foot piece of land between existing
homes and where you have the dark lines a 5-1/2 to 6-foot block wall.
This parking provides 866 parking places, one car per 157 square feet
but counted into it is nursery, garden shop, and if computed against
building, there is only one car per 125 square feet.
It is not improper to ask for a service station at this location,
and I believe the staff report indicated something similar to that
line also.
I would attach to the request of this type the condition that the
loading ramps be depressed, so that people walking on the sidewalk
or in their homes, opposite, would almost have to get onto some-
thing to see into the area. The trash area would be enclosed be-
hind a wall.
Employee automobiles would be behind the store.
There is 120-foot setback from the landscaped wall, 25 feet to
Valinda property line, 145 feet from Valinda line to nearest point
of building. On the south of the property, it is 174 feet from
that point to the nearest point of building. I think the balance
of this is somewhat self-explanatory. There is 25 feet of land-
scaped setback from Valinda, and you can get that when one owner
develops the property, but not if there are several people devel-
oping an area.
If the plot plan were to be accepted by the Council, it would be on
this property with the buildings being placed in the fashion shown.
I think you have the opportunity here of doing something good and
not anything bad.
Mr; Noonan
936'S Broadmoor
from the pattern of homes and more
encouragement to business to come
dollars worth of"business begging
help.the home owner not to permit
the City?
a
We have property in West Covina
to grow up to provide places of
employment for our people, in-
come for our City and to change
homes. We should give more
in and here we have 12 million
to come into the City. Do you
this type of business to come into
C. .'4-10-61
Page Thirty
:ZONE CHANGE NO. 171� UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54 PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN NO. 2 - Continued
IN OPPOSITION
Mr. D. Kiedrowski At one time the Walnut Creek
646 S. Gaybar Wash was considered by the City
as a natural boundary between
the commercial and residential
zoning with nothing commercial in this particular area, and the
zoning was considered by the residents of this area when they bought
homes, and many moved out here to leave similar problems behind.
However, the City Council saw fit to rezone this area for commercial
use and it was done over the protests of the residents of the area,
but done nevertheless. There was given potential R-P zoning, still
over the - protests of the residents, who were told this was done for
a protection of buffer between the R-1 and C-1 zoning. More recently
one-third was rezoned C-1 without the knowledge of most of the res-
idents of the area. However, there was still a potential buffer
with R-P zoning. There has been a consistent chipping away of the
desirability surrounding residential property.
This will contain a large store with a large outside area and a
large service station. We do not begrudge the right of this prop-
erty owner to benefit from his property, but not at our expense.
It would devaluate the entire area of residential property, and
because of that we would be forced to make a financial contribution
of substantial size for what is not needed here nor wanted here.
Mr. Noonan is handling this transaction, and his interest here is
• money. He has made the statement that property values would be
increased 10% with this going in, but I do not really believe that
he thinks that we are naive enough to believe this with a loading
zone, warehouse, and trash zone right on top of us. Do you, or
does anyone really think a home would go up 10% in value with such
a use so close here?
There was even testimony presented earlier this evening that a
savings and loan association would not lend money for R-3 facing
R-1 and certainly the converse is true for C-1 facing R-1, which
would devaluate property across the street from it.
There might be some possible justification for putting this use
here if there were not other just as desirable parcels for such
use nearby already zoned C-1 and nearby.
Although this is proposed for C-1 use, this use actually falls
more into a C-2 use. C-1 is classified as a neighborhood type
of commercial zoning, and that statement has been made many times.
This enterprise by its very nature depends on customers from the
whole valley and it could not continue if it could not draw from
a large area. It would seem this is a broad interpretation to
indicate this as a C-1 use, and the only comparison to C-1 might
be that it is not a wholesale use and would not be two-story in
height, but that is the only way it complies in any way to what
is considered C-1 use. This is, in reality, a C-2 or even heavier
use zoning next to R=1 and with nothing more for buffer than a 6-
foot wall. It isn't only our opinion -that this is C-2 in use, but
we checked the Los Angeles Area and Consumers Mart in Anaheim in
M-1, C.M.A. Torrance is in M-2, Ecco Covina is'in M-1, White Front
Anaheim is in C-2, Serv-U Market Pico -Rivera is in C-2, Paleys
Anaheim is in M-1, Udesco Downey is in M-1 and Cal Stores Lake-
wood is in M-1 and M-2. Edimart, Anaheim, is in M-1, CertiBond
City in Torrance is in M-2. You can see the majority of similar
type -uses -are in-M-1 or M-2 zones. Discount houses are still on
C. c. 4-10-61 Page Thirty-one
ZONE CHANGE NO. 14, UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54, PRECISE PLAN
.OF DESIGN NO. 264 - Continued
Mr, D. Kiedrowski - Continued:
trial in this country and many merchandisers are not convinced they
are here to stay.
If this store had to close or went bankrupt, what would you do with
a building such as this sitting here? If it were in an "M" zone, it
could., without doubt, be turned into a factory, but what about here?
We are interested in seeing this City grow and are possibly among the
first 15% of residents that moved to West Covina. However, we are
entitled to the same protection to our investment and surroundings
as others in the City, and I do not believe for one moment that you
would allow this in the Country Club area, and there is no more
mason to have this happen here.
We took photographs within the last 60 hours of Cal Store operations,
It looks like a factory building, there is an unsightly storage area
and this is the only type of construction this type of firm can af-
ford because they are in a business only to make money, and so they
build cheaply and there is no reason to believe there would be any
different type of building placed here than the type they have at
Lakewood. There is a trash pile shown at the rear of the building
lot and there is no residential area anywhere near the location.
You can look at the cars and then,can you believe this store would
create no parking or traffic problem here, and this store shown is
located at and served by two major streets that makes Glendora,
• Service and Valinda look like alleys.
These pictures, taken on Saturday, do not show the trucking nec-
essary to this type of operation, since there is not much trucking
or handling going on on a Saturday afternoon.
This certainly gives you a good idea of the operation proposed here
and I really do not see how with any type of consideration or re-
flection on your part you could inflict this thing on the people
in this neighborhood. In fact, I heard this evening that the West
Covina Chamber of Commerce has stated their opposition to this
proposed development here.
The R-P zoning can also include apartment houses.
All Mr. Cunningham has done, apparently,,, is moved the problem 50
feet further in the same direction, but the people are still going
to have to look at this parking lot.
Mr. R. Salstadt
703 Serenade Street
within the 300-foot radius opposed
We have submitted a petition
with 213 signatures of people
opposed to this use., and there
are 83% of the property owners
to this use here.
This would provide parking for 940 cars at one time and increase
the traffic without any pedestrian protection and a great hazard
to the children going to school as there are two parochial schools
right in this immediate area.
This use here would also give off obnoxious fumes from autos and
trucks., noises of vehicles, and unloading trucks, almost a 24-hour
procedure and nuisance of lights.
C. C. 4-10-61 Page Thirty-two
ZONE CHANGE NO. 17-3', UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54, PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN NO..264 - Continued
Mr. R. Salstadt - Continuedo
• The State allows 1316" high trucks, and they would need a hole
7 feet deep to hide the trucks from sight, and shrubbery wouldn't
be dense enough or tall enough to keep this from sight of resi-
dences.
•
On the map, the existing street dead -ends at property line in
question, and these streets are too long for cul-de-sae s. The
connecting street isn't anything but an alley, and the plan calls
for an alley over to other properties. The proposed street doesn't
conform to the building code and is inconsistent with the master
plan.
J. S. Ewing
734'Serenade
story of the three little pigs
it now exists in the writer's
cation.
With your permission, I will
present my objections in the
form of a parable. There fol-
lowed a parable comparing the
and the wolf, with the situation as
opinion with respect to this appli-
Mr. R. Nolley There has been no plan sub-
711 Craig Drive mitted to give any satisfactory
answer to the problems that the
Planning Commission denied this
on. So far as appraising these homes, I received word from an ap-
praiser, who I would not desire to name unless specifically asked to
do so, in relation to the value of our property before and after
this use would be placed on this property, and his words were,
"It would lower the price of the house in value of sale from 10
to 20% as this requested use would be considered a detrimental
influence and an attractive nuisance."
Mr. D. Horner
701 S. Holly Place
I signed this petition is that
down alongside of my house, and
would be another wall and a 20
the start of this thing.
My lot is the key lot whether
this alley went on or turned
here, and would be no help or
hindrance to me. The reason
they proposed to bring this alley
I have a wall there, anf if there
or 30-foot alley, I would be against
However, it was given to me to understand that if this is R-P prop-
erty, they can build two-story buildings, so this with the con-
cessions proposed, I believe, would be better and make more of a
completion with the cul-de-sae s, and putting houses all around
there. I would rather see these people come in with a store than
a two-story multiple apartment house unit in there.
I am not speaking for or against, but if it came to one of the two
uses, I would rather see these people be made to make more con-
cessions and put in a shopping center than have any apartment
houses here.
Also, this land is 3 feet higher than other properties, and if they
put in a wall, it would only be 3 feet high on the store side of
wall unless this is graded to some extent.
C. C. 4-10-63 9 Page Thirty-three
ZONE CHANGE N0. 17 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54 PRECISE PLAN
OF:DESIGN.NO. 2b4- Continued
IN REBUTTAL
Mrs. Samuels: I -would call attention to the
fact that there is no difference
in C-1 and C-2 zoning, except
that C-2 allows car agencies, larger signs and a greater height of
the building, so to call.this C-2 in a C-1 zone is somewhat out of
order.
Refuse and storage areas should be entirely enclosed and mandatory,
in every commercial development.
So far as traffic noises and other various factors of that type,
they already exist, they will not be created by this development.
We are dealing with a situation here of property here at present
legally zoned for a good and sound use such as this, and it is only
a matter of realignment.
So far as land elevation, if Council should choose to impose as a
condition there shall be added R-1 lots to the tract below, then
the wall would be from the ground up. So far as the people are con-
cerned, there will be 6 feet on their side.
So far as market going elsewhere, that is true. They can go to
Covina or the City of La Puente, for which original consideration
was given. They could go elsewhere. In the central business dis-
trict of West Covina, there was no other parcel of adequate size.
It was checked.
We seem to be confronted tonight that homes will be seriously dam-
aged by commercial use here. There are an estimated 2000 homes for
sale in Covina Valley, and I personally inspected street of homes
near commercial areas with some facing on parking lots, paralleling
it, and in the ten first such streets I inspected not one single
house was for sale. There was such a sign on the llth street in-
spected, but the house did not back up to the use. It was at the
east end of Shamwood. This could possibly be a coincidence, and
it might be with one or two, but with 10 streets it isn't possible.
Houses adjacent to commercial areas are attractive to people to
live in and are not for sale, and that certainly answers any question
of depr�e,ciation because they are not distressed properties in any
way.
So far as a heavy use. We are talking about 3 acres as against a
permissible 5 acres, so the use isn't necessarily a heavy use,
It is a lighter use in that respect.
A commercial building is not zoned for one isolated use, but many
uses under one roof with one tenancy, and this doesn't affect the
zoning or use in any way.
So far as retail in C-1, 2, 3 or M-1 in West Covina,'in the San
Fernando Valley there were thousands of homes built on an M-1 area
and then an M-1-1/2 zoning use had to be created. Just because
some houses are in an "M" zone doesn't mean all must go into that
zone and just because some stores are in an "M" zone doesn't mean
all must go there.
This is a good, logical use and conforms to the zoning placed on
there in the master plan as designed for the City. I can't recall
any occasion of any great -objections to the master plan that was
C, C. 4-10-61 Page.Thirty-four
ZONE CHANGE NO. 17 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54 PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN NO. 2 - Continued
Mrs, Samuels - Continued:
under study and I think this tonight is a sample of what the City of
West Covina desires to carry out its aims and ambitions as disclosed
in its declaration of planning principles, or are we to go backwards
in refusing to welcome working businesses into the City?
I have one suggestion I would like to make if it is in order. The.
Council is perfectly capable of putting any such restrictions and
conditions on this precise plan as they see fit to satisfy any valid
objections and yet permit the property to be used in accordance with
its zoning. We have a June 1 deadline. If there is any way of
working this out in a more satisfactory manner perhaps it could be
done. If we are to have this project under the terms of this lease,,
then the zoning, if the Council feels this is the right and proper
thing to do, the zoning should be granted tonight, but it would not
be necessary to approve the precise plan as it stands tonight. The
zoning itself must be by ordinance, but the precise plan is done by
resolution., which necessitates no interim waiting period as does
the ordinance to go into effect,'and with that understanding and
idea, and we all know what the proper use is here, ample safeguards F
can be made on the plan and I would like to request the Council to
grant the zoning application tonight and the use permit and hold the
precise plan and perhaps the Planning Commission and staff could give
you further study on this plan before your next'meetingo I know the
developers would work with you in every way possible,
Mr. Noonan:
are not occupied by the owners of
About 10% 'of the property from
Holly Place to Craig Drive is
rental properties today and
the property.
Glendora Avenue is destined to take care of 40,000 cars a day.
By the 1959 House Act, I can buy anybody's house, up to a limit of
5, within 300 feet on which the F.H.A. has set a price and I will
get them 10% more than that price.
I speak as an official spokesman for St. Christopher's Church and
they are not combatting the use of this property as proposed. They
would like something like this going in, Cal Stores do not open
until noon on Sundays and are not open on major holidays and Easter,
and the parking lot can be used by the members of the church.
There are pictures of residential property as close as most of
this property to the May Company and residential contiguous to
the West Covina Plaza, and there is no single incident in West
Covina where the residential property owners have lost one dime
in the progress of this community. This is good for the City, for
the people in the community, and for all the residents involved
here tonight.
There being no further testimony presented, the hearing was declared
closed.
Councilman Towner: I think one thing that should
come out is in relation to our
apartment zoning, in relation
to two-story going in here. We would require, and the ordinance
requires, a 100-foot minimum setback of one story,
c. c. 4-lo-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. M3. UNCLASSIFIED USE
Page Thirty-five
NO. 54. PRECISE PLAN
Councilman Towner - Continued-
One of the first things to bring out in the Declaration of Principles
ahead of the items two and three as indicated in testimony is the
first item which, I believe, is the primary principle and which is
that West Covina is basically a city of homes and families.i It is
clear from this declaration of planning principles we put homes and
families first and this commercial development is designed to serve
the homes and families and the people that live here. This has been
the slogan of the City and this is the way we should do our zoning
so we try to measure this type of development with that basic prin-
ciple and the other principles quoted in the way of this type of
development.
I think it is good that we get sound commercial development into
this City, but I sorely feel that this development as presently
presented is severely detrimental to the existing homes for reasons
stated by the Planning Commission in their resolution and for further
reason that if this is changed in accordance with the recommendations
of Mr. Cunningham. it doesn't meet the problems. There is a very
long cul-de-sac, which is hard to police and give fire protection
to. The new existing row of homes would not be adequately buffered
even though this is landscaped and a wall is provided. It is insuf-
ficient because of the height of building and property having sight
of the trucks.
I do not think it solves the traffic problem. Glendora Avenue is
• designed to carry heavy traffic, but not to localize it in resid-
ential area.
We recently rezoned this area after some study and the rezoning was
in accordance with the usual plans of trying to protect the home
owners and to develop it according to that zoning and leave the
major type commercial use to be placed in the more central business
location.
I think the application for zone change should be denied, and along
with that the Unclassified Use Permit and the Precise Plan.
Councilman Barnes- As was stated by Councilman
Towner, this came before us
a short time ago for a change
of zone to C-1 and it was potential C-1. This had been done by
planning prior to my being on the Council, but there was a profes-
sional man who did this zoning and at that time he felt it was good.
We are now going through another general plan, and I would hesitate
to rezone this property more than it is, and I think the people in
the area deserve the right of buffering. I have always been for
proper buffering of R-1 zoning and we should give protection from
traffic, light, extensive noise and that sort of thing.
I believe it showed a lot of initiative on the people's part that
7 213 people would sign this petition in opposition and come in and
present their case against this,
• Councilman Brown questioned as to the actual amount of area given
the C-1 zoning in relation to the ordinance. Mrs. Samuels read
from the ordinance as follows-. Ordinance No. 692. Lot 203 of
E. J. Baldwin.'s 5th subdivision of a portion of Rancho La Puente
in the City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of Cal-
ifornia, as shown by maps recorded in Book 12, pages 134 and 135
of Maps on file in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
C. C. 4-10-61 Page Thirty-six
ZONE CHANGE NO. 171. UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 54, PRECISE PLAN
OYDESIGN NO. 264 - Continued
Councilman Towner-, That wasn't the intent on the
last zoning.
Councilman Brown-, I wanted to bring this to
Council's attention. I do
believe this is a good develop-
ment for the City, perhaps not as it is, but it could be worked out
by the applicant and they have to have this started by June to How-
ever, with the slow red tape through which a City works, I do not
see how we can do it, and I am afraid we will lose this asset and
development in the City.,
Mayor Heath; I looked at this map, and in
dAng so, you have all of the
area surrounding Vincent Avenue
as commercial on both sides coming down. Then coming below Walnut
Creek Wash you have commercial on the right and no doubt it will be
on the left. Coming across Glendora, you have the theater property,
plus some commercial along Glendora and this piece of property at
the far end. It sticks down into the residential area quite deep,
We should keep in mind that Glendora Avenue is scheduled to carry
40,000 cars a day and also we should keep in mind that Valinda
Avenue is scheduled for 17,000 cars per day, so the two will be
pretty heavily trafficked, and the area in between there no doubt
could be developed R-1, but if there was a choice which way it would
go, and it is going to be a heavy traffic area, commercial might be
• more adaptable in that area.
The plan on the board, however, offers no protection to the people's
homes on Valinda directly across from that building. There is no
protection whatsoever. The other is trying to protect some of the
homes and perhaps R-1 being built -simultaneously or prior to the
commercial building should be kept in mind.
To go back when I was first on Council, I heard statements made
that West Covina is going to have to take a road and make up their
mind what they want to do. There was no manufacturing tax base so
there was only one of three things. The financial center of the
valley hasn't materialized. Annex area and develop for some manu-
facturing to balance the tax structure which hasn't materialized,
or develop into the commercial center of the valley. In -this we
made a very good stab at it, and the majority of the City income
is from sales tax. I feel the City has got to look to more com-
mercial. I think this is the only way the City is going to take
the load off the home owners and develop its poor streets and its
parks. It is the only way it can go to improve its tax base.
For us to drive an organization out of the City like this is a
crime. It is true, some people will be hurt, but look at it from
the over all plan .... who will be hurt the most?
I feel the City has got to develop into a bigger commercial area,
than it is, and I would like to see it develop in commercial area
more than it is now., and driving this use out of the City isn't the
way to do it.
If the people in the area can be protected, I would go for this
100 percent.
C. C. 4-10-61 Page,Thirty-seven
ZONE CHANGE NO. 179, UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO.. 54, PRECISE PLAN
07 DESIGN NO. 264 - Continued
Councilman Brown.- I agree, but how would you do
a this by the first of June?
Councilman Towner-, I am essentially in agreement
that we need commercial and
should have developments like
this one, if we can afford proper protection.
Mrs. Samuels suggested that if the Council felt the zoning was proper,
perhaps the zone change could be granted With an introduction of the
ordinance this evening, but the precise plan could be held in order
to got final plans in for a plan check so as to be eligible for a
building permit two or three days prior to June 1 and that it is
the ordinance relative to zoning which causes the great amount of
delay on this, but if that could be granted and introduction given,
the details of the plan, such as details of cul-de-sac, type of
landscaping, could be left in the hands of the Planning Department
to work out with the applicants and still have sufficient time to
make the June deadline.
Mayor Heath-,
Councilman Towner-,
would get a precise plan acceptable
us at loggerheads if the plan is not
is not acceptable and the zoning is
of the extent of it.
Councilman Barnes-,
The precise plan is the governing
thing on protection to the
people.
I think that would be a big
mistake to permit the zone
change on the conjecture we
on it. In fact, it might put
acceptable. I feel the plan
not acceptable, either, because
They are now adding 9 acres more!
which was the buffering area for
the neighborhood.
It is true in other areas we have used R-3 and R-P for parking, but
not rezoned for C-1 building.
I do not feel the zone change is good, either.
Mrs. Samuels questioned as to whether there wasn't some procedure
that could be made to work out with the Planning Commission and
Planning Department on an acceptable precise plan relative to cul-
de-sac., landscaping, height of plants. To formulate something
without getting into too much detail so there wouldn't be later
disagreement.
Councilman Towner:
change question, and, frankly, I
property on these contingencies.
our back to the corner by zoning
fail, then we are stuck with the
It might be possible to iron
out these problems, but I think
that here we also have the zone
would not be willing to rezone the
I do not think it is wise to put
property and if'the contingencies
zoning.
Mrs. Samuels: I believe it is legally proper
for you to approve the zone
change and the precise plan
conditional on certain stipulations which you would make, then only
the details would be left to work out, or is it that you are unwilling
to have a development of this size in here? There is no other piece
of land in the business district sufficiently large to carry this.
C7
n
U
c. c. 4-lo-61
y
ZONE CHANGE NO. 179 UNCLASS
OF DESIGN NO. 2b4 - Continue
Councilman Towner-,
ning consultants at 10 minutes
I do not think we can do it.
Mrs. Samuels*-
Page Thirty-eight
USE PERMIT NO. 54, PRECISE PLAN
The size is a problem,, but to
do what you suggest is for us
to sit here and act as plan -
to one o'clock in the morning, and
If.you desire to hold this over
to a week from tonight, it would
still put us within reasonab-.e ,
distance to obtain.
Councilman Towner: There is another problem in con-
nection with that, in that by
ordinance, if there is a major
change in the proposal denied by the Planning Commission and pre-
sented to Council, it has to go back to the Commission, so really
you haven't gained much in time.
Councilman Brown*, It was indicated that A zone
change wasn't or shouldn't be
made subject to a precise plan
approval, but there have been many zone changes subject to precise
plan.
So far as the extent of C-1, this can be controlled by zoning and
precise plan. The R-P is usable for parking.
Councilman Towner:
The proposal is unacceptable
to me for the reasons prev-
iously stated.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
Zone Change No. 179 be denied.
Motion tied on roll call as follows*,
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes
Noes*- Councilman Brown, Mayor Heath
Absent: Councilman Snyder
A motion by Councilman Brown to postpone this matter to the adjourned
meeting a week from tonight failed for lack of a second.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
Precise Plan of Design No. 264 be denied for the reasons as stated
by the.Planning Commission report and for the reasons as stated in
discussion.
Motion passed on roll call as follows*,
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: Councilman Brown
Absent: Councilman Snyder
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
Unclassified Use Permit No. 54 be denied.
Motion tied on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes
Noes: Councilmen Brown, Mayor Heath
Absent: Councilman Snyder
a
0
c . c . 4-lo-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 17V, UNCLASSIFIED USE
OF DESIGN NO. 264- Continued
Page Thirty-nine
N0. 54,. PRECISE PLA
Mayor Heath-. I have been advised by the City
Attorney that in passing of the
motion to deny the precise plan,
it would mean that the precise plan must be completely re -filed from
the beginning. Anyone on the majority of a vote has the right to
re -call that vote, is this true, Mr. Williams?
City Attorney Williams: Yes, if you choose to do so.
Mayor Heath-o
could be resolved, it wouldn't
through the.Planning Commission
my vote relative to the Precise
of "No."
Councilman Towner-.
I will then use that perogative
and change my vote on the pre-
cise plan so that if something
have to have complete re -filing
and Council again. I will change
Plan of Design No. 264 to a vote
ation. You are not going to get it
Mayor Heath:
Councilman Towner,*
and if they change it materially, it
mission, and there is still the time
meet the June 1 deadline.
Mayor Heathg
isfactory design. I was not trying
City Attorney Williams-.
Councilman Barnes-.
It is going to have to go back
to the Planning Commission and
you still have the time situ -
through.
However, it would be an additional
expense to get another precise
plan through if it would go`the
way first indicated.
Your vote is predicated on the
assumption they will change
the precise plan materially.,
goes back to the Planning Com-
aspect and they said they must
I am not trying for that, but
to save them re -filing fee if
they should come up with a sat -
to beat this June 1 deadline.
In respect to the way these
matters have been voted, every-
thing is still before you. You
have not disposed of it.
If there is a 2 to 2 vote on
the Council, does the Commission
action take precedence?
City Attorney Williams: The Superior Court in Pomona
says so, but I do not agree
with it, and we have it in
court on appeal, The hearing before Council is a new trial both
under your rules and Roberts Rules of Order, and it takes a major-
ity vote to carry a motion or adopt a resolution. In zoning prop-
erty or rezoning property, that can only be done by ordinance. If
the Planning Commission had recommended this and you only had a 2
to 2 vote, you couldn't pass the ordinance, so it makes sense that
you can't pass on a tie vote, as you can't on an ordinance or res-
olution either of which takes a majority of Council to pass.
to
0
c. c. 4-lo-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. M1, UNCLASS
OF DESIGN NO. 264 - Continue
Councilman Towner:
Page Forty
USE PERMIT NO. 54. PRECISE PLAN
Councilman Snyder could study
the Minutes from this meeting
to enable him to make a pos-
sible decision.
City Attorney Williams: This will stay on your agenda
until you dispose of it, and
the ordinance says dispose of
it within a period of 30 days. However, if 30 days elapses you
do not lose jurisdiction to make a decision, although Anderson says
you do.
If they present a new plan it is new evidence. The only thing that
could take place is that Council could impose additional conditions
or changes on this plan. The proponents can't be heard further at
all and neither can the opponents.
RESOLUTION NO. 2077
Extending congratulations
relative to naming of Park
ADOPTED
Orangewood Park
Mayor Heath:
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA CONGRATULATING JOY RAE ElyaEl"-D
ON HER SELECTION
OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE NAME
FOR A NEW PARK."
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes-, Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes-, None
Absent-, Councilman Snyder
Said resolution was given No. 2077.
RESOLUTION NO. 2079
Determining that public interests
and necessities demand certain
municipal improvements
ADOPTED
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC
INTERESTS AND NECESSITIES DE-
MAND THE ACQUISITION AND CON-
STRUCTION OF A CERTAIN MUNICI-
PAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAKING
FINDINGS THERETO."
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 shall be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as followsg
Ayes: Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
N6es: None
Absent: Councilman Snyder
Sa id- - re's o-lution, was given No. 2079.
a
0
C. C. 4-10-61
Page Forty-one
INTRODUCTION
The City Attorney presented:
An ordinance giving notice
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
of a special election
WEST COVINA ORDERING, CALLING,
PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE
OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
ON THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE., 1961,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING
TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID
CITY A PROPOSITION TO INCUR
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY SAID
CITY FOR A CERTAIN MUNICIPAL
IMPROVEMENT."
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
.carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be
waived.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Brown, and
carried, that the ordinance be introduced and given its first
reading.
RESOLUTION NO. 2080 The City Attorney presented -
Authorization to file a "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
written argument for a COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
City measure COVINA AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF
ADOPTED ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN
ARGUMENT FOR -A CITY MEASURE."
Mayor.Heath,
-
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Brown.,
Noes.- None
Absent: Councilman Snyder
Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Said resolution was given No. 2080.
RESOLUTION NO. 2081
Rendering of specified
services to the City
ADOPTED
Mayor Heath:
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA REQUESTING THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES TO PERMIT THE
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OF SAID
COUNTY TO RENDER SPECIFIED
.SERVICES TO THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA RELATING TO THE CON{ -
DUCTING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID
CITY THE 6THDAY OF JUNE, 1961.11
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
c. c. 4-lo-61
RESOLUTION _NO. .2081 - Continued
Page Forty-two
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, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent-, Councilman Snyder
Said resolution was given No. 2081.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Aiassa: In regard to the Cameron Avenue
Extension between Orange and
Sunset Avenues. We have com-
mitments by letters from two property owners,' Leslie Sugar and
Mr. Kaplan, confirmed by telephone, and I am assured the oral
reply will be confirmed by letter.
I would like authorization to commit the Council in this matter on
the same basis that they have committed relative to the Vincent
Avenue extension, 48 feet center line of the street and with cond-
ition to the property owners nothing would be effective unless we
get money from the County and the County has acknowledged to part-
icipate with us.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
unanimously carried, (Councilman Snyder absent) that we will agree
• to improve a 48-foot center strip on Cameron Avenue from Orange
Avenue to Sunset Avenue subject to the deeding of land and ob-
taining either gas tax money or County Aid to Cities for the im-
provements, and with all remaining improvements to be done by the
property owners.
CITY ATTORNEY
INTRODUCTION
An ordinance regulating the
sale of fireworks
The City Attorney presented -
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA AMENDING A CERTAIN
PROVISION OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
FIREWORKS."
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be
waived.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that the ordinance be introduced and given its first
reading.
Reference was made by the City Clerk in relation to a matter under
his reports in regard to a letter from the West Covina Post No.
1776 Jewish War Veterans with regard to this ordinance.
C. C. 4-10-61 Page -Forty-three
ORDINANCE -REGULATING -THE SALE OF FIREWORKS - Continued
Councilman Brown stated they can be omitted, since in actuality they
did not meet the proper commitment in their first request regarding
fireworks, since they stated they were in the City to get their
permit, which they were not, and Council has already held strictly
to City organizations on this.
ORDINANCE NO. 698 The City Attorney presented:
Ordinance regarding license "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
fees for Laundromats COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
ADOPTED COVINA AMENDING SECTION NO.
6235.15 OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE."
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown., and
carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be
waived.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown, that
said ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows-,.
Ayes.- Councilmen Brown, Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Snyder
Said ordinance was given No. 698.
Councilman Brown left the Chambers.
RESOLUTION NO. 2082
Approving Precise Plan of
Design No. 252
ADOPTED
-Mayor Heath:
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA APPROVING PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN NO. 252.11
(First Federal Savings & Loan)
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Brown, Snyder
Said resolution was given No. 2082.
AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN AGREEMENT Motion by Councilman Towner,
WITH HAROLD JOHNSON seconded by Councilman Barnes,
and carried, that the Mayor
and City Clerk be authorized
to sign an agreement with Mr. Harold L. Johnson to reduce his
monthly retainer fee from $100.00 to $50.00, at Mr. Johnson's
request.
0
c. c. 4-10-61
'RESOLUTION NO. 2083
Granting a permit for
driveway access
ADOPTED
Mayor Heath. -
Page Forty-four
The City Attorney presentedg
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA GRANTING A PERMIT FOR
DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO HOLLENBECK
STREET."
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows. -
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Brown, Snyder
Said resolutions were given No. 2083.
In a query by the City Clerk relative to the action of the Planning
Commission at their previous regular meeting, it was indicated by
members of Council they desired nothing to be brought before them
at their particular request.
DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Barnes,
• seconded by Councilman Towner,
that Demands in the amount of
$81,883.71 as shown on Demand Sheets C-225, C-256 and B-74 be
approved. This to include fund transfers in the amount of $53,448.08.
Motion passed on roll call as follows-,
Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Barnes, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent.- Councilmen Brown, Snyder
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that the meeting be adjourned at 1-.25 A.M. to Monday,
April 17, 1961 at 7:30 P. M.
ATTEST.-
City Clerk
APPROVED_�!/,
Mayor