09-11-1961 - Regular Meeting - Minutes0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 11, 1961
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Heath at 7:55 P.M. in the
West Covina City Hallo The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council-
man Adams, with the invocation given by Councilman Towner.
ROLL CALL
Present, Mayor Heath, Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder
Others Present, Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager
Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk
Mr. Harry Co Williams, City Attorney
Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public Works Director
Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 28, 1961 - Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Council-
man Towner, and carried, that the Minutes of August 28, 1961 be
approved as submitted.
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS
PROJECT NO. C-142
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS
(William Kirkland)
APPROVED
LOCATION.- Alw®od Street and
Indian Summer Avenue, south
of Francisquitoo
Authorizes release of Hartford
Accident and Indemnity Company
Performance Bond No. N-3163229 in the amount of $4,2070,65o Notice
of Completion and Inspector's final report on file. Staff recom-
mends acceptance and bond release.
Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that street improvements in Project No. C-142.be accepted
and the authorization given for the release of Hartford. Accident
and Indemnity Co. Performance Bond No. N-3163229 in the amount of
$4,207a65o
PRECISE PLAN NO. C-1 LOCATION, 350 Soo. Glendora Avenue,
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS east side of Glendora Avenue and
(A. Do Addison) north of Walnut Creek Parkway.
APPROVED
Authorize release of -cash deposit
®f $1,000o®0o . Inspector°s final
report on file. Staff recommends acceptance and .deposit release.
Motion.by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that street improvements in.Precise Plan No.. C-1 be ac-
cepted and the authorization given for the release oi.the cash
deposit in the amount of $1,000.006
RESOLUTION NO, 2176 The City Clerk presented,
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
ACCEPTING A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT
AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION
THEREOF." (Ao Do Addison)
n
�J
s
•
Co Co 9-11-61
RESOLUTION NO, 2176 - Continued
Page Two
LOCATION: 350 South Glendora Avenue, east side of Glendora Avenue,
north of Walnut Creek Parkway.
For street and Alley purposes to be known as Glendora Avenue and
alley in back of Glendora Avenue. Improvements are in and inspected.
Mayor Heath:
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the body
of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder that said
resolution be,:adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2176.
RESOLUTION NO, 2177
ADOPTED
The City Clerk presented:
tO,A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA RE-
QUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
TO PERMIT THE USE OF CERTAIN GAS-
OLINE TAX MONEY ALLOCATED AS
COUNTY AID TOWARDS THE IMPROVEMENT
OF GLENDORA AVENUE FROM MERCED
AVENUE TO SERVICE.AVENUE BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALTIC PAVE-
MENT ON AGGREGATE BASE AND AP-
PURTENANT WORK."
LOCATION: Glendora Avenue from Merced to Service Avenues (east).
Proposed under Project C-153 and others. Amount $14,000.00 Budgeted
project.
Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the body
of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner that
said resolution by adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes; None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2177.
RESOLUTION NO. 2182 The City Clerk:presented:
ADOPTED `•A RESOLUTION .OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF.WEST_.COVINA
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
QUIT CLAIM DEED,"
Quit claim deed to easements in portion of Lot 258 of E.J. Baldwin's
4th Subdivision. Easement is no longer needed since replacement on
Final Map of Tract No. 26108.
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Three
RESOLUTION NO. 2182 - Continued
LOCATION: North of Merced Avenue, east of Lark Ellen Avenue.
• Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Adams that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath.
Noes: None
'Absent-, ..None
Said Resolution was given No. 2182.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
HEARINGS
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 347 LOCATION: 222 No. Azusa Avenue,
(Vernon Eichstaedt) between Garvey Avenue (Freeway
APPROVED AS STIPULATED Service Road) and Workman Avenue.
Request to permit nonconforming wheel stops, fence, trailer uses
in zone R-A denied by the Planning Commission, their Resolution.
No. 1066. Appealed by the applicant on duly 12, 1961. Hearing
held over from August 14th to August 28th and from August 28th
to September llth, at request of the applicant.
The resolution of the Planning Commission was read by the City Clerk.
Mayor Heath requested that the section regarding wheel stops be re-
read and then in reference to the part stating "not less than 2-feet
from property liner' he asked if that is inside or outsideooaodoes it
say which side of the property line. Mr. Joseph indica.ted,,you
can't place improvements on public right-of-way and Mr. . Williams
stated it would have to be on private propertyo Mayor° Heath again
questioned if the City Attorney were convinced the wording here is
clear enough and that they (wheel stops) should be on private prop-
erty? Mr. Williams stated yes, because this is found in the part
of the code that deals with improvements on property devoted to
parking and all of these improvements are on the:propprtyo If it
is on the property line and not within 2-feet of the property line
he would see no ambiguity.
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.
TN FAVOR
• Mr. Go McCormack, Attorney The report of the Planning
137J No Citrus Avenue Commission resolution took
Covina in several items but as far
as what is before this Council
there are only three items;
this fence located on City property, the wheel stops and the use
of trailers on the premises for offices.
Co Co 9-11-61
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 347 - Continued
Page Four
We will start with the fence. In drawing this area on the black-
board, Azusa Avenue is something like this and this is Ca Vernon's
• location. Now the Operator of Co Vernon constructed a fence over
here like this on the highway. On Azusa the R/W is 8-feet but it
seems that when you get back into this area in the City it is 10-
feet over here. He constructed that fence and I would like to show
that fence in a photograph and indicate it as exhibit °A°o Now as
far as the fence goes, it only goes in this area here, the side-
walk goes 8-feet all around the property. That was a mistake. As
seen by the photographs the fence is at the edge of the sidewalk
and if the fence is moved back 2-feet there will be a 2-foot strip
in there. The same thing happened at the Cook Tractor Company and
an agreement was reached with the City in that it be held harmless
to any claims. Mr. Eichstaedt will be willing to do that also and
I understand that the City approves that type of agreement. The
fence can be moved at a later date if the,City feels need of this
extra footage at some time in the future but to do so now would
serve no practical purpose until the City decides to use that 2-
feet and this was agreed to in the matter with Cook Tractor Sales.
Next is the wheel stops. I have three photographs which I present
and would indicate as exhibit °D°o It is true that the applicant
has put a curbing next to the sidewalk. However, in looking at the
photographs it is to be noted that Mr. Eichstaedt does not park the
cars against the curbing but parks the autos back. There is a def-
inite reason for this and one reason he put curbing in is that the
curbing is supposed to keep cars, in case brakes are loosened, from
. rolling into the street. I was told that was the main reason for
the wheel stops. The curbing, it is true, is at edge of the side-
walk but he parks the cars back of that because when a customer
looks at a car, the customer likes to walk around the auto and when
they are up against the wheel stops it is a hinderance and also a
hazard in the possibility of the customer tripping over them, which
has happened on his property, and which could open him to a lawsuits
Exhibit 'El shows stops on another similar type of lot in the City.
But when the customer looks at the cat he must also look where the
stops are and it is dangerous if the customer is not looking where
he is walking as these stops, stick out beyond the wheels of the cars.
Several cities have also considered this matter of cars rolling over
public R/W but they do not say wheel stops must be back 2-feet but
that car must not be parked to extend over the sidewalk. It was
indicated this is in violation of the ordinance but I am not sure
because they are not used for wheel stops and the ordinance says
wheel stops but they are actually only used as a safety factor to
keep away.the possibility of cars rolling over the sidewalk.
Actually a few weeks ago these cars being placed further back of
the wheel stops prevented more extensive damage to the cars when
a driver went over the curb in this area and b..it three cars. It
would have been more than that`.if:these cars had:.been right up to
the wheel stops instead of actually a bit back of them. The
applicant thinks that if the ordinance's purpose is to prevent the
auto from extending out over the sidewalk that a white line be
• painted down here about 3-feet and an auto not parked beyond that
white line. It permits the'cus-tomer to go around the car without
hindrance of the stop and is a safety factor for the customer and
also for the autoo As a practical matter we would feel that it is
better to have stops by the sidewalk and then have the cars parked
a bit back of those stops so there is no hindrance to customer, or
danger, when walking around the automobile.
C o C—9-11-61
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 347 - Continued
Page Five
The last thing is the use of house trailers on the premises for
use as offices. It seems there is a complaint here that the use
of house trailers is against the use in R-a zoning and that the
code is explicit. I have yet to find where the code is explicit.
It is true that there may be in an R-A zone the prohibition of
parking house trailers but there is a variance here to use this
as an automobile sales lot. In the first place it is impractical
to build permanent building for use on a used car lot. Azusa
Avenue is fast becoming a commercial center in this particular area
and this property is rapidly becoming too expensive for a used car
lot. The way things are going this may have to go commercial and
not be used for a used car lot, although how far this is in the
future might be a questiono But to put permanent buildings on this
lot is not economical from the used car lot purpose standpoint and
not a good investment to put up small permanent buildings for the
operation of used cars. In section 9212.1 of the code it says that
every use in a C-2 zone shall be subject to the following uses and
conditions indicating the business be conducted wholly within a
building, except it indicates in Section 9211.1 "'automobile and truck
sales"'. This seems to be the complaint of the Planning Commission
and the Building Department that there should be permanent buildings
here but even the code, so far as car and trucks sales, doesn't make
a car lot conduct all its business within buildings. If this is R-A
this is one thing, but this property has been given a variance as a
use for automobile sales in C-2 zone so conducting business wholly
within a building isn't required. The trailers used by the applicant
are attractive, I present you photographs of these and designate them
as exhibits °B° and oCo, and I do not think they detract or are they
unsightlyo He is using a house trailer but they do not look like
house trailers from the street. The applicant was previously on
property to the north, where Haefner is now, and he used trailers
for this purpose for a considerable period of time. I do not think
that to require him, on this type of operation, to put in permanent
buildi#gs is either within the ordinance nor a good economical oper-
ation, The applicant would like to stay here but the property is
getting very expensive to keep and he can't stay if he has to make
the capital improvements that are indicated to be here.
We request that the Council, so far as the fence is concerned, agree
to an arrangement as with Cook Tractor. We further ask permission,
through` variance, to use the white line and existing curbing along
the sidewalk instead of installing additonal wheel stops. We point
out the ordinance says not less than 2-feet and from the interpre-
tation, whether east and west, it would appear he could put car stops
at the back end of the lots. —it is that ambiguous..... and he could
put car stops at a rear wheel. We do not think the mere fact the
statute says 2-feet should be applied as front wheel car stops on
car stops themselves, but draw a white line and indicate the car can't
be parked closer than the white line and it is a good practical solu-
tion to this problem.
So far as the house trailer, it serves a good purpose and we would
like to know what sections of the variance are that require the
Is operation in a permanent building.
If this request is turned down we request a 6 months stay of execution
to enable the property to be put up for sale for another use,
Mr. Ho Bluthrode I have to pass by this every
1830 Pioneer Drive night coming home from worko
West Covina Isn°t it true there is a fence
put up here at night or is it
at the north end?
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Six
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 347 - Continued
Mr. McCormack: At the north end.
• Mr, Bluthrode: Every time I travel by here I have
never seen cars or bumpers projec-
ting over the sidewalk. Frankly,
it sounds very reasonable to me that people walking around a car
expecting to buy it would not want to trip over a bumper, On a
regular parking lot it would be different but I can see where this
suggestion here is practical.
•
There being no further testimony the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Towner: The first question in my mind is
the ordinance relating to prop-
erty, whether there is actually
an ordinance that says this must have buildings and not trailers?
Mr. Joseph:
Mayor Heath:
The property is zoned R-A, but
assuming it had C-2 on it.....
Under what is it operating?
Mr. Joseph: A variance. Assuming a C-2 on
it to permit this type of use,
the statement is that business
be conducted wholly within a building is correct except those C-1
automobile and truck sales, excluding trailers and otherso
Trailers are permitted to be situated only in a C-3 zone. A
building definition of "wholly within a building" is a permanently
located structure having a roof excluding all forms of vehicles
including these mobilized.
Councilman Towner:
Mr, Joseph:
Mayor Heath:
There may be other ordinances
that confirm this or conditions
on the variance or precise plan
that confirm it.
The precise plan only indicated
these spaces being used for
offices.
Not stipulating building or trailer,
City Attorney Williams: I think there is nothing to answer
because in precising nothing re-
quires there be a building but
there seems to be something that requires there not be a trailer,
Councilman Barnes: Can you operate a used car lot in
a lower zone than C-2?
City Attorney Williams: With a variance.
Councilman Barnes: He did apply for variance.
City Attorney Williams: The variance permitted a new and
used car lot but as to the type of
structure that can go on it, 6idin-
arily it is the same type of structure that can go on it with a var-
iance that could go on it if it was in the correct zone.
Councilman Towner: Ordinance requires used car in C-3?
•
•
•
Co Co 9-11-61
ZONE VARIANCE NO, 347 - Continued
Mr. Joseph:
Mayor Heath:
Mr. Eichstaedt:
not connected, and not used in
Councilman Snyder:
Mr. Eichstaedt:
Page Seven
C-2
Are there sleeping accomodations
in these trailers, kitchens?
No, although there are stoves in
two of them but they are not used
and are covered and taped shut;,
the three years they have been here.
How far back is canopy along side-
walk from the curb?
Between 1-1 to 2-feet. Two feet
from curb or property line,
Councilman Snyder: My feeling is that if you have ever
gone down Figueroa, this car lot
here is much more attractive. I
have seen much worse, even in new car lots. With the canopy being
there he is not likely to park a car beyond the canopy as it is
there for a purpose and serves to keep the car back. I would tend
to believe that if he had the white line he would tend to stick to
that line because the canopy would give added incentive to stick to
the line. These shops shown on the plan, are they there?'
Mr. Eichstaedt: These are but you enter from this
side.
Councilman Barnes: Is that a permanent structure?
Mr. Eichstaedt: No, on wheels. But this is enclosed
here so you can't go through from
here.
Mayor Heath: The wheel stops is the only thing I
have any real objections to. I
think the wheel stops could be cut
shorter, the length of the wheel stops similar to the width of the
car. If these wheel stops can be tripped over and are next to side-
walk, that is City property and possibly the City could find itself
liable for this condition to exist. I feel the wheel stops are
essential and should be put back where they should be and the curbing
along the sidewalk edge removed.
So far as trailers, if there are not sleeping quarters in them,
and it would seem there are not, they are better establishments
than the shacks that are seen on most used car lots.
I think we can reach an equitable agreement on the fencing,
Councilman Snyder:
If wq:are going to require wheel
stops here we are going to require
them deeper in the lot,
Councilman Towner: Wheel stops are essentially to pre-
vent any possibility of cars rolling
into a public R/W and would not be
required back farther in the lot, just along the border of the loto
I, too, am inclined to the correct placing of these wheel stops.
There may be some argument to change the ordinance but I do not think
this justifies any change here and now and if they are properly spaced
they can accomplish the purpose without a hazard to the customer.
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Eight
Zone Variance No. 347 - Continued
Mayor Heath: He formerly was on property just
immediately to the north, with the
same use, and the wheel stops were
40 placed ',.properly there and I believe they worked out very satis-
factorily and are presently working out satisfactorily.
Councilman Barnes:
I have no objection to the fence
and I think that can be worked
out satisfactorily.
As to the wheel stops, I think short wheel stops could be put in
and placed in the proper area with no danger of tripping over theme
On the trailers, I feel we were asked for a variance to get a cer-
tain use to operate and I think he should comply with whatever is
asked for under that variances He asked for a higher use to oper-
ate that business and I think it should be complied with. I do
not see how we could use a trailer in what is, to me, a C-2 zone
because it has this kind of variance.
Councilman Snyder: Regarding wheel stops, I think
the objection the applicant has
regarding customers tripping over
them seems valid for cars at the curb. Maybe we do not necessarily
need to require wheel stops but a 3 or 4-feet high fence along
where the curbing is. Chain link.
• Councilman Towner: The ordinance requires wheel stops
and unless there is some peculiar
condition on his property, he is
not entitled to the variance and I think he can solve the question
under the ordinance.
Councilman Snyder: But there is danger of tripping
and someone sueingo
Mayor Heath: Is this curbing on City property?
Mr. Dosh: I believe it is right on the
property line.
Councilman Towner: On the fence, I think this could
remain subject to holding the City
harmless and subject to the City,
if it so desires, to be able to have it removed at any time. I do
not think this should be under variance but some other type of thing.
City Manager Aiassa: Encroachment permit,
Councilman Adams: I feel there is a question here of
where the wheel stops are located
even if they are on the applicant's
property in that they are located in a manner that could be a hazard
• either to the persons walking on the sidewalk or on the applicant's
property, It is specified in the code that these shall be con-
structed and placed in such a way and I think he should abide by it.
Perhaps we could clarify this or have it put in another way but at
the present time it is spelled out very clearly in the code and I
think this should be followed through.
So far as the trailer, I am not quite sure whether this can be al-
lowed on this property under the zoning allowed but I do think it is
an asset and probably a permanent building would be less attractive
and so long as it is not actually spelled out perhaps it can or
cannot be there.
•
•
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Nine
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 347 - Continued
Councilman Adams - Continued
It was the general consensus that the matter of the fence could
be worked out similar to the matter taken care of with Cook Tractor.
Mayor Heath: The wheel stops are spelled out
in the ordinance as to where they
can and cannot be. Is there any
serious objection to the location of these wheel stops to a loca-
tion other -than where the ordinance specified? Should there be
a variance to deviate from the ordinance?
Councilman Snyder: I think it is too harsh and is
not taking in all the probabilities
and I would be for working out some
other method,
Councilman Towner: Maybe we should consider rewriting
the ordinance to provide some other
safety factors to prevent cars from
going into public R/W but I do not feel we should deviate from the
ordinance at this time.
Councilman Snyder: I think there should be some alter-
nate method and that there is cer-
tainly more than one to prevent this.
Councilman Barnes: We do have.an..ordinance
now and it should be complied
with. With shorter wheel stops
I do not think it would be a hazard so far as people walking a-
round the car,
Councilman Towner and Adams agreed with Councilman Barnes' state-
ment.
Mayor Heath: There is the matter of the trailers.
There are evidently no sleeping
quarters and they are boxed in
at the bottom. I do not know if the ordinance is clear on this
stipulation or not. Should we permit these with the stipulation
of no sleeping quarters?
Councilman Towner: Can we do this without changing
the ordinance? It seems this
doesn't show special circumstances
to justify a variance contrary to the ordinance. I agree the
trailers are not too bad but I do not think he can set them by
ordinance. Apparently the only place to apply as to trailers
are in a C-3 zone and the question is whether or not a used car
lot can get in trailers which are in C-3 zone. It would seem,
however, that as a matter of logic there could be a used car lot
in a C-3 zone and everything else that was in that zone could be
put in there.
City Attorney Williams: The ordinance provides conformance
to the precise plan and the pre-
cise plan showing buildings per-
missible to grant a variance which isn't exactly a new variance but
simply establishing the terms indicating trailers could be permitted
as offices on the precise plan in the place as shown.
0
0
Co Co 9-11-61
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 347 - continued
Councilman Barnes:
City Attorney Williams:
variance application.in the..
able now than you would have
granting the variance in the
Page Ten
This would be very nice but
do you think this would be
setting a precedent?
It is a subject that could
have been covered had it been
considered at the time of the
first place. You ixre: not any less
been able to do it then when
first place.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and
carried, that Zone Variance No. 347 be granted in the following
respects. That trailers be permitted in lieu of offices as. -shown
on the precise plan provided these trailers are not used as living
quarters; that the variance be denied as to the request for wheel
stops and that the variance be denied as to the fence but that in
lieu thereof the applicant be granted an encroachment permit sub-
ject to an agreement holding the City harmless and that it shall
remain the right of the City to require removal of the fence at
any time it deems necessary.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 199
and
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
No. 290
(Edward Jo La Berge, Jr.)
HELD OVER AT REQUEST OF
APPLICANT TO NEXT REGULAR
MEETING
LOCATION-. Northeast corner of
Azusa Avenue and Danes Drive.
Request for reclassification from
Zone R-A to zone R-P and request
for the adoption of precise plan
of design. Denied by Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 1093
and 1094.
Appealed by applicant on August 21, 1961.
Notice of hearing published in West Covina Tribune August 31, 1961.
Mr. La Berge requested this matter be held over to the next regular
meeting in that all information had not been compiled by his at-
torney and he was not aware of this fact until today. There was ob-
jection from those in the audience who desired to testify in
opposition in that they felt this matter had been considered in
various applications and that all necessary information should
have been compiled to present before the Council at this time.
However, Mr. LaBerge stated that he was only requesting something
that had been granted over various periods of time to other ap-
plicants making a similar request and Council was of the opinion
that since all evidence would not be able to be presented at this
time, if the hearing were held, it would be to the benefit of all
concerned to hold this hearing over as requested.
Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried that Zone Change No. 199 and Precise Plan of Design No.
290 be held over to the next regular meeting at the request of
the applicant.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 200 LOCATION-. Northeast corner of
Charles W. & Nenetzen J. Varney Thelborn Street and Azusa Avenue,
APPROVED AS STIPULATED between Thelborn Street and Row-
land Avenue.
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Eleven
ZONE CHANGE NO, 200 - Continued
Planning Commission Recommends approval of request to reclassify
from zone R-A to Zone R-Po Resolution No. 1095.
Notice of hearing published in West Covina Tribune August 31, 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.
IN FAVOR
Mr. Charles Varney We are owners of this property,
1540 E. Portner This shows potential R-P which
West Covina we are asking to be activated,
and C-1 next to it. We are
planning to build the whole
block right straight through as a unit. We have sold a small
section at the corner of Thelborn.and Azusa and those parties
will speak on their own behalf relative as to that plan, although
it is in conformance with our lot where we place all buildings at
the back of the property with an alley and the street straight
through. We have the precise plan approved and ask this be ac-
tivated. These other people have had their medical building ap-
proved and R-P property will be on both of them.
Mr. Charles E. Carter I am a member of the firm which
Covina prepared this application on be-
half of the owners and the med-
ical doctors. It is potential
R-P surrounded by commercial and R-P to the south. We feel this
should be permitted in order to provide a cocrdinated development
with that portion of land to the north so that portion between
Rowland and Thelborn Street may be a continuous type of frontage
with a single type of development with the property in front.
Mr, Ho Bluthrode I won't say I am particularly
1830 Pioneer Drive opposed to the,plan but I would
like to suggest to the Council,
although I was not present when the precise plan went through,
some type of protection be given to these homes down here, I
understand the alley but would suggest some sort of restrictions
regarding flood lighting not be directed toward homes, some type
of landscaping. I feel it is in the best interests of the City
for homes to get every bit of protection and it would be no hard-
ship to provide some type of planting to insure against noise of
air conditioners or anything else that might generate a nuisance
to the people back here.
IN REBUTTAL
Mrs, Varney: The alley is 20,-feet.
• Mr, Carter: There is an existing 5-foot block
wall and there will be a 20-foot
continuous alley at the rear.
There is landscaping provided at the side and the developers cer-
tainly will not develop it in any way that would cause a nuisance
to the residential tract in the rear.
The conditions of the precise plan were read by the City Clerk,
Co C. 9-11-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 200 - Continued
Page Twelve
Councilman Towner- When considering a potential
zone to a firm zone the main
. reason or means of activating
it is consideration of a precise plan and here, as I see this
plan, I have considerable doubt as to whether it accomplishes
our usual and customary protection to the homes, particularly
as to setback, rear yard and landscaping, or lack of it.
Mayor Heath- The main thing here, I feel,
is the 20-foot alley at back
separated from residences by
a 5-foot wall. With the north end developing commercial it
will only become a main throughway for trucks adjacent to the
5-foot wall back of residential property.
Mr, Joseph- This merely continues the ex-
isting precise plan and the
southerly area already has been
approved by the Cityo As to location of driveways, alley, wall,
buildings, they were previously approved by the City and in re-
viewing this at the time of the Planning Commission meeting it
was felt it may not be appropriate for the short distance of
property remaining to impose further conditions.
Councilman Snyder- The setback across Thelborn is
considerable from Azusa. I do
not know if the sewer easement
• has anything to do with this or not but they are forced to set
back considerably by setback to the south and the sewer which
forces them back, Back of the medical buildings there would be
practically no activity only employees parking.
Mayor Heath- There is a commercial develop-
ment at the north and possibly
that shows an alleyway at the
back but here it is extending the alleyway behind this building
and directly behind the homes and would be nothing more than a
freeway for trucks. There is no reason why that alley has to be
continued from the commercial propertyo You need egress to the
back of the building but there is no reason why the driveway
has to be continuous. There is enough left at this end to drive
back of the building and there should be some obstruction to
keep trucks from going all the way down.
Mr. Joseph- It was a recommendation of the
Fire Department.
City Manager Aiassa- You shouldn't close the alley if
the Fire Department is concerned
about it� for fire protection.
Mayor Heath- Why?
•, City Manager Aiassa- The Fire Chief feels it should
be open and if it is so stated,
I feel it is with good reason
because fire protection is his specialty. When damage is done or
a home is burned, none of these lay people will take the respon-
sibility or liability. When staff -recommends, considerable
thought is given to the problem by staff members who have con-
siderable fire protection knowledge,
0
40
Co Co 9-11-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 200 - Continued
Mayor Heath:
City Manager Aiassa:
Mayor Heath:
Page Thirteen
There are two alleys and two
driveways and the front one
could be left open with plenty
of access to fire trucks.
You must allow for egress when
second parcel is developed.
Center one, not come in back,
could be lef t.openo
I think this should be held over as I feel with the information
I have before me I couldn't act on this.
Councilman Snyder: Your only objection is that you
feel the alley should not be through?
Mayor Heath: Yes.
Councilman Towner: That is not the only objection in
my mind. We have developed
standards -of protection to ad-
joining homes, including landscaping to shield homes from noise,
and visually. We have restriction on lights and setback and height
restrictions and other things to maintain the value of the homes.
It is possible we have a different situation here but I think we
should keep our standards high and try to retain them.
Councilman Snyder:
Councilman Towner:
left open in case this comes out,
procedure, left.
As a matter of procedure, can we?
We can deny zoning because the
plan is inadequate. This is the
reason for wanting the hearing
there will be some way, through
Councilman Snyder: I would like you to look at the
precise plan again and note that
the man is forced to set back
this faro He has a one-story building which is not unsightly
over a 5-foot wall and the only problem is possibly the truck
problem.
Councilman Barnes: I think this could be controlled
and with the recommendation of
the Fire Chief, he could have any
fire equipment go through the alley in front and block off the
alley to the back.
Mayor Heath: I do not think that posting
against through truck traffic
would do the job.
Councilman Barnes: It is a private driveway and we
could control it or property
owners could control it.
Mayor Heath: I do not think we have enough
information on this,
Councilman Snyder: What further information can you
need?
Co C. 9-11-61
Page Fourteen
ZONE CHANGE NO, 200 - Continued
Councilman Towner: There are standards -we have
tried to adhere to and I
' think we should hold this
over and give the applicant the opportunity to discuss, fur-
ther, the precise plan. I do not feel I can approve zoning
unless there is an adequate plan.
Councilman Snyder:
Mr. Joseph:
City Attorney Williams:
I would like to review pro-
cedure necessary for calling
up a plan ....othe time limit.
It is 20 days and this matter
was heard before the Commission,
and action taken on it, at their
meeting of August 16.
You had a meeting on August 28.
Councilman Snyder: I do not think it is fair to
hold this up just because we
failed to call up the precise
plan when we should have and the only real contention, in my
mind, is the truck traffic down the alley,
Councilman Barnes:
Mayor Heath:
Councilman Barnes:
I think that could be worked out.
Fire Department says future alley
be left open nothing about the
back alley therefore the back
alley could be closed off.
And further it when the next
precise plan comes through and
stop any truck traffic coming
through at that time.
Councilman Towner: I think we would be acting con-
trary to the best interests of
the City if we approved this
zoning on the basis of this plan. It doesn't protect the homes,
it doesn't conform to landscaping setback and other standards
to protect homes.
Councilman Snyder:
Councilman Towner:
Councilman Barnes:
You are against zoning with this
plan and don't you think some-
thing can be resolved in two weeks?
I do not think the plan is adequate
but I think something might be
worked out in two weeks.
Protection against what, employees
parking or trucks?
Councilman Towner: Visual and noise standards of
protection. On Ralphs we provided
60-feet with 10-foot landscaping
with trees, lights were not to be a nuisance, trucks be away from
areas and loading and unloading docks screened.
E
•
Co Co 9-11-61
ZONE CHANGE NO. 200 - Continued
Page Fifteen
Councilman Snyder: Most of those matters are -taken
care of by the nature of the
buildings here.- It is one-story,
employee and owner parking at back and as to lights certainly there
is only night lighting to protect the back of the building after
dark. I just do not see the intrusion here.
Councilman Towner: The problems aren't tremendous
and can be solved in the next
two weeks by inserting land-
scaping and other methods of protection.
Councilman Barnes: I do not feel there is need of
landscaping as it is the same
height as homes. We are not
talking about a large development as Ralphso This is single
story such as the residences and I do not see any particular
detriment.
Councilman Towner:
Councilman Snyder:
Councilman Towner,
Mayor Heath:
Councilman Snyder:
Councilman Barnes:
That is true in part regarding
the medical building but it is
my contention the precise plan
is covering almost two acres
from street to street.
You have special problems of
sewer easement and driveway
down the center and setback of
building to the south.
These aren't prohibitive but
just problems,
I still feel the main problem
is through traffic on rear
alley. If this can be solved
I am ready to act on it -tonight.
I would agree it can be solved
by a barricade to the rear.
So would I.
City Manager Aiassa: I would like one condition on this,
then, that the Fire Chief have
another final look at this Precise
Plan and approve any such changes. It may appear to be all right
just so long as we are protected for proper fire fighting,
Councilman Towner:
Councilman Barnes:
Councilman Snyder:
There should be landscaping along
back wall in accordance with the
usual custom going with a one-
story building there.
I see no need for it.
I see no room for it.
A motion of Councilman Snyder to approve this zone change was
withdrawn,
•
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Sixteen
ZONE CHANGE NO. 200 - Continued
Councilman Towner: Can we put conditions on a change
of zone?
City Attorney Williams: As you know, a.zone change in-
dicates an ordinance. If you
act tonight the ordinance would
be brought in for introduction at the next meeting and not passed
until the meeting after that. The Planning Commission will meet
within that time. If you simply order the ordinance drawn and
indicate you favor the zone change provided such and such ad-
justments are made in the plan I think these could be made, then
if the Planning Commission is willing to amend their resolution,
and you have the applicants consent it would be all right. But
this couldn't be done without the applicant's consent to the
amendment. 'It couldn't be done without the applicant's consent
because it has become final.
Mayor Heath: Would the applicant be willing
to close the alley for throughway?
Mrs. Varney: We wanted to close it in the first
place but the City Commission in-
dicated that we run it all the
way through on the other plan.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes that
Zone Change No. 200 be approved if the Precise Plan is amended
to eliminate the through traffic on the alley in the rear and
that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare an ordinance re-
zoning as requested.
Councilman Towner:
Councilman Snyder:
I am wondering why:the departure
from standards?
We'are not departing but I can't
see what good landscaping will
do on the street to the east be-
hind a 5-foot wall and it isn't
a commercial use.
Councilman Towner: Visualize living there. You have
a visual matter and sound matter
and protection from these adds to
the way of life that we have relative to this type of development.
Councilman Snyder: We are requiring landscaping in
front and on the south but I do
not know where else we have re-
quired landscaping in an alley
on such a use.
Mayor Heath:
Councilman Towner:
Landscaping on this side of wall
would beautify the doctors office
rather than doing anything for
the residential on the other side.
I am pretty firm in my convictions
but evidently I stand alone.
0
4
Co Ca 9-11-61
ZONE CHANGE NO, 200 - Continued
Page Seventeen
Councilman Barnes: If this were two-story or above
height of homes I could see the
possibility of screening but if
you did this here you might as well ask property owners to screen
their property from this.
Mr. F. Fleischeker
437 La Breda
West Covina
The 5-foot wall is all right but
our level is 2-feet higher than
the level on the other side.
You want to close the alleyway to the rear but I would like to
state that.already we have the problem, from' the real estate uses,
of cars from this use cutting up Thelborn then over LaBreda so
that if you close off this alley to trucks they, too, may or may
not start to use La Breda to get through. I think we can do with-
out trucks and if you close this I think you will force them to
go through our street,
Councilman Snyder:
Mayor Heath:
The purpose of an alley isn't a
public thoroughfare anyway and
if it is to avoid going on a
street it is not used for purpose
it is created.
To leave this open would certainly
be adverse to anything we have ever
done in similar situations.
Mr. F. Fleischeker: Except I would like to have you
see what is happening on our
street with the real estate
people now. We have 14 homes and 15 children on the street and they
are using this residential street to go back and forth,
Mayor Heath:
alley in the back left open,
we would certainly consider
said it would be adverse to
If you could get every resident
in that area to sign a petition
to the affect that you want this
as you have indicated with reasons,
leaving it open although as I have
anything we have usually done.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed,
The Mayor asked the question on the vote to approve Zone Change No.
200, as indicated, with Councilmen Adams, Barnes, Snyder and Mayor
Heath voting 'Aye' and Councilman Towner voting 'Noe.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 198
and
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
No. 286
(Gerald M. Weitzman)
HELD OVER TO NEXT REGULAR
MEETING FOR BLOCK STUDY
LOCATION: 130-138 South Barranca
between Garvey and Virginia Avenues,
REQUEST: Reclassification.from
zone R-A to zone R-3 and request
for adoption of Precise Plan of
Design denied by Planning Com-
mission Resolution No., 1091 and
1092
Appealed by the applicant on August 25, 1961. Notice of hearing
published in West Covina Tribune August 31, 1961.
The resolutions of the Planning Commission were read by the:City
Clerk.
9
•
Co Co 9-11-61
Page Eighteen
ZONE CHANGE NO. 198 AND PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN No. 289 - continued
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated that all those -
desiring to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the
City Clerk.
IN FAVOR
Mr. G. M. Weitzman
1611 Rolling Hill Drive
Monterey Park
voting against the proposed uses
The comments were -by just -two
members of the Planning Com
mission, the Chairman'beirig absent
and the other member of the Com-
mission, with great hesitation,
of the property rather than for it.
I would like to go on and tell you what we propose for this piece
of property and what we are proposing, which isn't a typical R-3
but and R-3b of very low density. :This is a new concept of mul-
tiple type use and will rent at $185.00 to $250.00 a month. To the
best of my knowledge there is nothing in this whole general area
or in the City that has this high type of luxury rental unit.
There will be two bedrooms, two baths and two offstreet parking to
each and every apartment. These will be in 8 individual units, or
building, each having a separated patio fenced in. There is house
parking area, and guest parking area in front with landscaped area
with 45-foot setback. It has a recreation area of over 7000-feet
And is self-contained for the development itselfo The whole prop-
erty of 21 acres is all self-contained.
Over here there is a water reservoir and pumping station directly
to the south of this property. Immediately across the street is
a use for similar development a little under 10 acres. We were
asked why we couldn't develop this 10 acres this way instead of
the 2 we asked for here° This is approximately a cost of a half
million while the same type across the street would be two million.
Also this other property is bare, smooth, not a tree on it whereas
this property is quite heavily wooded and is attractive to this
type of development.
Immediately to the north is C-1 zoning, There is a Wash but I do
not feel that it is a natural barrier to eye level or anything else.
There is Eastland and a service station and this would act as a
good buffer zone to residential area.
To the best of my knowledge people within 300-feet of this are all
for it but any that are beyond it are against it. They generally
aren't against the development but against the breaking down of
the natural barrier of the Wash.
This property is a hardship case with R-3 across the street,C-1 to
the north, a pumping station and water reservoir to the south.
Virginia Avenue comes off here and comes back through here. A °C8
zoning was asked for on a portion of this property at an earlier
hearing. We are not asking for C or R-3 but an R-3b of which we
are less than half of those requirements which allow 25 families
per acre and we are projecting only eleven families per acre,
We are only single story so that would lessen your requirements.
We are also way over on the parking and this is very heavily land-
scaped.
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Nineteen
ZONE CHANGE NO, 198 AND PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 289 - continued
Mr. Weitzman - continued
The problems intrinsic with this property.is the reservoir° Ir is
said it can be"turned into R-1 but I question how to"finance sub-
divide and -equalize this piece of property. Many parcels are un-
developed along Virginia Avenue for single family for a number of
Years and there are many in the upper highlands for acreage and
subdivision lots for good single family dwellings.
This property is on Barranca and should be considered with freeway,
R-3 and C zone and not what is behind it here. If this had R-3b,
it''would be a good transitional area acting as a buffer and enhance
the area -and be compatible with it. It is not spot or jump zoning
and it would not change any zone beyond that to a higher useageo.
This will not tax your schools further as we will take in no,children
nor will it tax your streets because we have easy egress and the
property itself is a self-contained property.
Mr. R. Alsop I am the only one who lives here-
130 Barranca Street right now, and I have done so for
9 years. I have seen a lot of
changes and this used to be rural
country neighborhood and now it is different and the May Company
is what changed it. There has recently opened up a tavern, as shown
in the pictures, and if you can tell me you are going to see R-1
built here along this Wash with a beer tavern in such proximity, I
• think there is nobody who would buy that. There is also a swimming
school near here and the instructors are out there all day, with
the kids, blowing police whistles so much and so loudly that it even
scares the horses.
0
The people who will object actually are not really concerned because
they are much further on down Virginia Avenue and even if they are
worried about continuation on this, it would merely still be the
back portion and not front Virginia Avenue because there is already
homes along there and we are just really talking about this little
islando I note the Commission was reluctant because this wasn't
developed over here and one of the Commissione3s brought up the fact
that they should hold the line at the Wash and Barranca Street but
when Barranca was brought into this I do not know because formerly
it was only the Washo When they build here, now or later, it isn't
going to be for R-la
IN OPPOSITION
Mr. Braden
3102 Virginia Avenue
of use that went into this area,
problem of what we are going to
is a real one.
We want to oppose this for the
same reasons we have previously
stated and for the reasons that
we opposed this other similar type
This is spot zoning, and the
do with the rest of the property
The proponents couldn't understand why this is called spot zoning
but people that own this other area desire to put the zoning to
what is asked for this property here so this can't help but lead
to a change in the rest.
Co Co 9-11-61
Page Twenty
ZONE CHANGE NO. 198 AND PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO, 289 - Continued
Mr. Braden - continued
The fear of the other property owners, and myself, is that prop-
erty will be devaluated by such zoning changes and'we feel it is
unfair to'people who have purchased individual homes in there to
have the zoning changed and apartments come in, It is true that
this property is at the rear of home owners -along here but we''
feel -this, property, if it goes in this direction, can only have'
an adverse affect upon the value of these :other home- properties.
Where do we stop the spot zoning that would go through with this
sort of thing?
We understand there is a general plan being considered for the
City and I would question this spot zoning would fit into it.
The larger piece of property for multiple use was forced zoning
and there hasn't been anything done with it yet although it
occurred several years ago,
I am spokesman for the West Covina Highland Assn. and ask this
be denied on basis of spot zoning and detrimental effect for
those owning property along Virginia Avenue and in that area.
Mr. W. So Berger My main objection is that I
3153 Virginia Avenue feel that by granting this
zoning, it is bound to be
attempted to have the same
• zoning in the surrounding area and just go up about two blocks
north on Barranca and you can see what happened to the residential
there. I agree with Mr. Braden that the economics of the thing
really hurts and we have large lots, with plenty of room for our
children. We know something has to be done with this property
behind us but feel this type of zoning here will lead to more of it.
IN REBUTTAL
Mr. Weitzman- I would lake a definition of how
you determine this is spot zoning
when there is a definite transi-
tional zoning here. We have C-1, then immediately south is R-3b,
low density, and how this is spot zoning I do not know.
There are continual objections relative to property to the rear
but why jump up with any zoning here. If the property owners
wouldn't like to look at the beer hall how would they like to
live here in a house? What are you going to do with it? There
has to be something, some final solution as to what is to be done.
Is this good useage or isn't it? People wouldn't buy a house here
with beer, horses, reservoir, freeway and what have you but I think
they might take an apartment because they take up and move if they
do not like it. It would certainly enhance the area and clean it
up. It's always a case apparently of "I do not want to live here
• but let somebody else develop this in homes." You can get substandard
development, nothing -down homes and you start with nothing and end
with nothing but let us put houses in here anyway, it is said, while
we desire to put in very highgrade apartment development.
So far as this other property, we have made no negotiations, there
is no collusion -or no idea of buying outside of this property.
This isn't land speculation we are waiting to go ahead and have
submitted letters as to our integrity and intend to build in
accordance with this plan.
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Twenty -One
ZONE CHANGE NO, 198 AND PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO, 289 - Continued
There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Towner: It seems to me that;the primary
fear of the people that live in
this area is not so much aimed
at this particular site as it is at the possibility of the ex-
tension of other than R-1 in areas down Virginia Avenue beyond
this. I am inclined to look favorably on this application of
R=3b low density, single story, landscaped type of development
and it seems to be suitably located here and it appears that ifi
previously indicated action we have drawn -the line on'extending"
it down away by the denial of a similar zone request on adjacent
property. The R-3 zoning across the way, the C-1, access to free-
way, the Wash and possibility of a very high type of development,
rather than something lesser in R-1, appeals to me. This use would
tend to maintain the character of the area rather than degrade it.
Councilman Barnes: I lake the looks of this type of
development but I do not believe
it is a good development as
presented here for one reason; you have a 122-foot strip 660-feet
long laying adjacent to the Wash that would be very difficult and
also create a very difficult problem to develop if it weren't in-
cluded in this or developed into R-1 of the total area. I think
their plan is excellent but I would not be for this particular
plan on this property because of that narrow strip running that
length that is not a part of this development.
• Councilman Snyder: I think that everything that
Councilman Towner has stated
is fine except that before I
made up my mind I would like to see a block study of this property
and vacant property to the east, see if there is possibility of
access, and maybe the only way we can get access is from the west.
I, too, am also unhappy about the narrow strip running along the
north side. A block study might alleviate some fears on property
to the east. I do not feel that this property, if there is pos-
sibility of access to the east, wouldn't lead to development of
this type to the east and might be a good.buffer,
Councilman Adams: We have a problem here which
developed before nowo It seems
these people are offering some-
thing good for the immediate neighborhood and an asset to the
City as a whole. I have heard this talk of the Wash being the
line between one type of development and another but I do not
go along with it 100 percento I would like this particular type
of development to go into this particular area, I think it would
be suitable and an asset,
Mayor Heath: It is a beautiful development in
a rather poor place. I question
why R-3 across the street hasn't
developed and the only reason it was zoned at that time is that
it had a potential on it and because of that we indicated it would
be,R-3 and rather reluctantly on the part of the Council it was so
zoned.
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Twenty -Two
ZONE CHANGE NO, 198 AND PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO, 289 - Continued
Mayor Heath - Continued
As
If owned dot not
can stop
to p P Y
` you -could
deny R-3 to me if you give R-3 to this parcel? It isa beautiful
development but across the street, when that plan came in, it was
even prettier but it never developed and it would lead'me to be-
lieve there is no need for R-3 here or it would have developed.
We need this type of development in the City, because it is'def-
initely beautiful, but what. -you see on the board may not develop
that way. It is a precise plan and it can be richly or poorly
developed. I am not judging the integrity of these people but -
the property across the street was zoned and sold as a promotional
deal, and I am not saying these people will do that either, but
there is a possibility there will be. If I lived in a home in
that area, or invested in one and looked across at a beer parlor,
I would be more reluctant to give up that home than if I lived
in an apartment for $200.00 and could move out and live in an
apartment at $125.00 and in better environment.
I feel if you jump the street there, and I am not saying limiting
it to Barranca there should be apartments and not necessarily make
a barrier at that point, but if you go across the street from this
present zone R-3 you are going to have to go right up the Wash.
Councilman Snyder: I think that if you could control
development of land to the east
this development wouldn't have to
have any effect to the east. If you could show something on the
block study that this could be done then this possibly would be a
good development but I feel I can't make a decision until there is
such a study or have the general plan,
Mayor Heath: It was stated this is a problem
shaped piece of property. The
piece to the east is of the same
character, same terrain, same contour and one of the stipulations
of a variance is to enable a problem shaped piece of property to
enjoy the right of adjacent pieces of property. If this is granted
property to the east would have legitimate claim for variance.
Councilman Barnes: All the more reason for a block
study.
Councilman Towner: You have heard my comments but
having heard the comments of the
rest of Council I think there
might be some problems on the north property that might be part
of the single precise plan to maintain the character established
on it and I think there are good points as to the block study on
the area to the east. We should be able to show that it is not
• extendable to the east if that is the best zoning or planning to
the area. I would be willing to hold for a block study.
City Manager Aiassa: It is before Council and Council
should look at it and if the block
study brings forth certain condi-
tions that they think are valid and logical they can refer it back
to the Planning Commission for re -analysis of the case as a whole.
If the block study doesn't give something substantial you can rule
on the case submitted,
0
C. Co 9-11-61 Page Twenty -Three
ZONE CHANGE NO. 198 and PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 289 - Continued
Councilman Snyder: This area was left out'before the' -
City was planned and before putting
it in; we should see how it might
be developed and I think we need a block study.
Mayor Heath: We are acting on denial of -our -'ad-
visory group and if we have'the -
study it should go to them before
it comes to us so they can have the benefit of it.
Councilman Snyder: It could be sent to them after it
comes before use
City Attorney Williams: This would not have to come before
the Commission,
Councilman Snyder: This doesn't harm the people
directly south on Virginia but
it does possibly develop more
problems in property to the east and I feel we must, solve them and
also property to the north,
Mayor Heath: We have, in our estimation, foolishly
lined the freeway with R-3 and if
there is any vacancy factor it is
on a truck route where they go bounding by every three minutes and
I do not think this use would be good here,
Councilman Snyder:
Councilman Towner:
Mayor Heath:
Councilman Snyder:
Would you live in A home here?
On that basis, then, there should
be more manufacturing and/or com-
mercial along the Freeway.
In a home people would be more
hesitant to move than from an
apartment.
This block study might constitute
some new evidence and would the
interested parties be permitted
to speak?
City Attorney Williams No, it simply is a study conducted
by yourselves and is not directly
constituting evidence relating to
the case. You would not have to re -open the hearing or refer it
to the Commission, unless you desired to do so.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that Zone Change No. 198 and Precise Plan of Design No. 289
be held over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for a
block study to be presented on the surrounding area and study as
to the potential use of parcel 2 within the precise plan.
This was also held over with the consent of applicant in that during
the discussion Councilman Snyder had asked the applicant if he would
be willing to have this matter held over pending the study and it
was indicated that the applicant had no objection.
•
9
Co C. 9-11-61
SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION'
No. 169
HEARING CONTINUED TO
NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Page Twenty -Four
Hearing of protests set for this
date by Resolution Noo 2170 by
the City Council on August 14, 1961.
Notice of this hearing published
in the West Covina Tribune on
August 24 and 31, 1961.
City Clerk Flotten. Let the record show that -there are
39 parcels of land -in the proposed
annexation. The total assessed
valuation of the land is $36,380.00 and this is the only thing to
be considered in inhabited annexations. There were no written or
oral protests received,
Mayor Heath opened the public hearing. There was no testimony
presented.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that Southerly Annexation No. 169 be continued to the next
regular meeting of the City Council so that an additional 10 days
be permitted for any protests or objections on this matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION LOCATION. East side of Azusa
NO. 135-183 Avenue, between Badillo Street
(Arthur Jo Stinton) and Puente Avenue.
APPROVED
1.65 Acres - 2 Lots - Area District
II
Approved by Planning Commission on September 6, 1961.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-183 be approved,
subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
REVIEW OF ACTION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting of September 6, 1961.
There were no matters called before Council other than as designated.
(It was indicated by Councilman Towner that if there is any zoning
action in which the precise plan is connected, to make sure that
Council is cognizant of it in case they desire to call it up,
especially if the meeting is getting on into the very late hours
of the evening or wee hours of the morning. This is not an indi-
cation of automatic call up but just to make sure Council hears)
RESOLUTION NO. 2187
ADOPTED
The City Clerk presented;
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP
OF TRACT NO. 26108 ACCEPTING THE
DEDICATIONS -THEREIN OFFERED AC-
CEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUB-
DIVIDER AND A SURETY BOND TO SECURE
THE SAME" (Frank Horny)
LOCATION. North side of Merced Avenue, east of Lark,Ellen Avenue.
Ca C. 9-11-61
RESOLUTION NO. 2187 - Continued
Page Twenty -Five
Approves final map of Tract No, 26108 and accepts Union'Pacific
Insurance Coo'Bond No. B-95798-iri the amount of $23,OOO.00 for
street and sanitary sewer improvements,
Mayor Heath:
Hearing no objections, we'will
waive further -reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Snyder that -
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2187.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS LOCATION: C-96 ----- West side of
PROJECTS C-96 and C-154 Sunset Avenue, south of Rowland
APPROVED Avenue
C-154 ----- Southwest corner of
Lark Ellen and Merced Avenues,
and northeast corner of Lark
Ellen and Vine Avenues.
Approve Plans and specifications and authorize City Engineer
to call for bids.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and
carried that Plans and Specifications on Project C-96 and C-154
be approved and the City Engineer authorized to call for bids.
REQUEST OF LES USHER Widening of Merced Avenue
1162 Sunkist Avenue
Referred to Public Works Dept.
for report.
1) Mr. Usher proposed that he will dedicate the 10-foot widening
on Merced if the City reconstructs the frontage to include
curb and gutter and paving on Merced. Inasmuch as this in-
volves costly reconstruction at the cross gutter, which must
be done, the total project is approximately $2400.00.
2) If the City were to request a deposit from Mr. Usher of $2.00
- per front foot which is a policy the City Council has adhered
to in the past, it would cost Mr. Usher approximately $340.00
and the City $2060. This would solve maintenance problem
once and for all,
• 3) If neither of the above procedures is followed, the City is
still obligated to correct the drainage problem in the area.
The estimated cost for correcting the problem, which would
involve reconstruction of a portion of the cross gutter at the
intersection, grading, a certain amount of driveway, etc., it
would cost City approximately $600.00. This would still result
in a maintenance problem for the City, even though we would
have corrected drainage problem as it now exists.
Ca Co 9-11-61
LES USHER REPORT - Continued
Page Twenty -Six
Adjacent property owner to the east has sought relief for some
time and we firmly believe that it is essential that this problem
be taken care of immediately, either on a permanent basis, or as
mentioned in alternate Noo 3,
RECOMMENDATION: Construct permanent improvements at this time,
providing Mr. Usher dedicates the necessary right-
of-way and participates to the extent of $2.00 per front foot. If
Mr. Usher is unwilling to participate to the extent of paying for
the curb and gutter improvements, it is our recommendation to re-
construct that portion of the cross gutter necessary and do nec-
essary grading work to relieve the drainage problem at this location.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that the project be approved as recommended by the Staff,
subject to Mr. Usher paying $2.00 per front foot and dedicates
necessary right-of-way, and if Mr. Usher is unwilling to do this
the Staff is then authorized to spend monies to the extent of $600.00
for the correction of the drainage problem as indicated in the
report.
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 199
ACCEPT SANITARY SEWER
FACILITIES
(Pioneer School)
APPROVED
Inspector°s final report on file.
LOCATION: Rowland Avenue, west
of Azusa Avenue.
Release Anchor Casualty Company
Bond No. 153204 in the amount of
$1,939.45.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that sanitary sewer facilities in variance No. 199 be
approved and authorization given for the release of Anchor Casualty
Company Bond No, 153204 in the amount of $1,939.45.
RELEASE OF $1,000.00 Principal: Maier Plumbing and
STREET EXCAVATION BOND Hea-bing Company, Inc.
Release of New York Underwriters Insurance Company's bond No.
3148614 in the amount of $1,000.00. All obligations guaranteed
by this, bond have been satisfactorily fulfilled.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and
carried, that New York Underwriters Insurance Company's Street
Excavation Bond No. 3148614 in the amount of $1,000.00 be released
to the Principal, Maier Plumbing and Heating Company, Inc.
RESOLUTION RE COUNTY AID LOCATION: Cameron Avenue from
PROJECT C-145 Orange Avenue to Sunset Avenue.
Requesting use of HTC County Aid to City Funds for street and bridge
improvements, matching funds for Project C-145 - $33,000.00
It was consensus this be held over to next regular meeting,
Co Co 9-11-61
RECREATION & PARKS
Page Twenty -Seven
Mayor Heath indicated that the Parks and Recreation Commission
has given some indication that their items be acted upon in their
. proper place on the Agenda and not later on the City Manager's
report. However, the City Manager indicated they are always
acted upon in proper order on the Agenda unless otherwise stamped
in that the item has been referred for some further reason to the
City Manager for his report on a particular matter or that it is
an item which also must come within the scope of the City Manager
and his references to it.
REQUEST FOR SIGNS 1203 W. Puente Avenue
BY ST. TIMOTHY'S
LUTHERAN CHURCH For two signs to be placed on
public right of way to indicate
present location, at intersection of Vincent and Puente Avenues
and other at corner of Puente and Sunset Avenues. The size is
23 X 33 white on black mounted on 8-foot steel posts set in
concrete.
Reason is that it is difficult for newcomers to find this church
because of its location and it is felt it is important to put up
these signs for the good of the community,
City Manager Aiassa indicated the only question was that if a
sign is in public R/W the City is liable for any phase of it and
there should be some relief to the City in proper coverage and
that the City is set harmless and there also be maintenance con-
ditionso
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and
carried, that the signs requested by St. Timothy's Church be
conditionally approved, subject to the approval of the staff on
the problems of location, size, maintenance and liability.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
TRACT NO. 13867 - Lot NO. 32 This property is going into
receivership and there is a
bond that we now have for
certain improvements amounting to-$800000o Bond should be for-
feited to the City.
Motion by Councilman.Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that it is the finding of the,'City Council that the time
for the improvements has expired;that.the work has not been done
and the money in the amount of $800.00 is to be forfeited to the
City to be used for the installation of the required improvements
that should have been put in.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and
carried, that informal bids be received for execution of contract
40 by purchase order.
•
r.
Co Co 9-11-61
VALINDA AND CAMERON
AVENUES ALIGNMENT REPORT
as made by the consulting traffic
State for approval as to gas tax
Page Twenty -Eight
Motion by Councilman Towner,
seconded by Councilman Adams
that the recommended No. 1
alignment as per the report
engineer be submitted to the
projects
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Mayor Heath.
INTRODUCTION OF The City Manager presented:
ORDINANCE "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEN-
DING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING CIVIL DEFENSE
SHELTERS,"
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Adams that
further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that the ordinance be introduced and given its first
reading.
NORTH SUB -FIRE STATION Motion by Councilman Barnes,
seconded by Councilman Adams,
and carried, that the City
Manager be authorized to attempt to negotiate for Parcel 2-A
at the corner of Puente and Yaleton Avenues for a new Fire
Station.
Councilman Snyder voting 'No' in that he did not feel this is
good planning and that there is just as desirable a site avail-
able that is much cheaper.
Councilman Towner stated that he would vote aye, although he
did not necessarily favor this site, but would go along with
the majority of Council and further felt this matter had been
delayed far too long and the best opportunities had been lost,
REPORT ON STREET SIGNS General study of entire City
indicating 695 signs, and in-
dicating breakdown of these
signs, what they are, such as substandard, reflector type, etc.
City considering going into permanent type of sign and bringing
the entire City to new standard sign,
RESOLUTION NO. 2191
ADOPTED -
CONTIGUOUS TO THE PRESENT CITY
(Annexation District No, 170).
The City Attorney presented at
11:55 PoM.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA GIVING
NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN TERRITORY ADJACENT AND
LIMITS OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA."
Co Co 9-11-61
RESOLUTION NO, 2191 - Continued
Sets date of hearing for October 23, 1961.
Mayor Heath:
Page Twenty -Nine
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2191.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that the City Attorney be authorized to represent the
City and the City Clerk in the case just filed by Forest Lawn
Companyo
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried that the City Attorney be authorized to represent the
_ City to file a petition for Writ of Mandate contesting the va-
lidity of the Walnut annexation which includes a portion of the
Forest Lawn Property.
• P.U.C. Motion by Councilman Barnes,
vs seconded by Councilman Adams,
SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY that the City Manager, City
Attorney and Mr. Montgomery
be authorized to proceed with
the case of the P.U.C. vs. the Suburban Water Company water
rate increase.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
ADDED FEE TO Motion by Councilman Snyder,
MR. EISNER seconded by Councilman Barnes
that the added fee of $213.00
as per original agreement, for
additional work done on the base map be paid to Mr, Eisner.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes:: None
Absent: None
CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 2188 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AP-
PROVING PRECISE PLAN'NO, 266
(Rev. 2-A) (Ralphs Grocery Co.)
Co Ca 9-11-61
RESOLUTION NO, 2188 - Continued
Page Thirty
Mayor Heath-. Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
. body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows-.
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2188.
INTRODUCTION OF The City Attorney presented:
ORDINANCE "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING
THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO
AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES."
(Britt - Zone Change No. 193)
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Adams, and
carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be
waived.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded.by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that the ordinance be introduced and given its first
• reading.:
ORDINANCE NO, 718 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING
THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO
AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES."
(Reeves)
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Adams that
said ordinance be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said ordinance was given No. 718,
ORDINANCE NO. 719 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION,"
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that further reading of the body of the ordinance be
waived,
•
r:
Co Ca 9-11-61
ORDINANCE NO, 719-Continued
Page Thirty -One
Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, that
said ordinance be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes:, Councilmen Adams, Towner, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: Councilman Barnes
Absent: None
Said ordinance was given No. 719,
RESOLUTION NO. 2189
ADOPTED
Mayor Heath:
m
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AP-
PROVING PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
NO. 2820" (Busching)
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder
Noes: Mayor Heath
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2189.
RESOLUTION NO. 2190
ADOPTED
Mayor Heath:
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ESTAB-
LISHING THE POLICY OF THE CITY
WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCEPTANCE
OF CASH BONDS AND OTHER CASH
SECURITY AND REPEALING RESOLUTION
NO, 14910"
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the body
of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Adams, that
said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Said resolution was given No. 2190.
PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS No. 30 City of Covina ) No
No, 19 City of La Puente) Objections.,..
No. 263 City of E1 Monte )
REQUEST OF Previously referred to Chamber of
ORGANIZATION FOR Commerce as it was a request to
AID OF HEMOPHILIACS Solicit merchants and this matter
was answered by theme
Co Co 9-11-61 Page Thirty -Two
CARNIVAL REQUEST St. Christopher's Church -
October 11, 1961
12 to 8:30 P.M.
• Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, and
carried, that the request be approved, subject to approval of the
City Staff Committee.
•
MAYOR'S REPORTS
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES MEETING
TRIBUTE FROM INTER -
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
TO SURROUNDING CITIES
USING FACILITIES
BOMB SHELTER REQUEST
Pasadena, September 21, 1961
Councilman Snyder to attend
October .18, 1961
Re: Bomb shelters in each school.
Mayor will reply.
ATTENDANCE AT DINNER It appeared to be the consensus.
HONORING CHAIRMAN DEBS that this should not be attended
at expense of the City, although
if anyone desired to attend at
their personal expense there would be no objection.
INCREASE IN MAYOR'S
ALLOWANCE FOR EXPENSES
INCURRED ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY
a month beginning September 1,
DINNER FOR MR. CAMERON
Motion by Councilman Snyder,
seconded by Councilman Adams`.
that the City Attorney be in-
structed to draw up the necessary
legal form to increase the expense
allowance of the Mayor's to $50.00
1961.
Councilman Snyder and Mayor Heath
to attend.
DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Towner,
seconded by Councilman Snyder,
that Demands in the amount of
$111,160.09, as shown on Demand Sheets C-276, C-277, C-278 and
B-83 be approved. This total includes fund transfers in the
amount of $68,640',87o Motion passed on roll call as follows -
Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath
Noes: None
Absent: None
Co Co 9-11-61
Page Thirty -Three
Request for the City Clerk to draw up a resolution to be presented
at next meeting honoring Mr. Debs as Chairman of the Board,
• There being no further business, motion by Councilman Snyder,
seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried that the meeting
be adjourned at 12:40 A.M.
ATTEST:
•
City Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor