Loading...
11-27-1961 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEK 1NG OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA November 27, 1961 •The meeting was called to order by Mayor Heath at 7:35 P.M. in the West Covina City Hall, The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Coun- cilman Barnes with the Rev. Lauren Egdahl of the Calvary Lutheran Church.giving the invocation, ROLL CALL Pre',sent: Mayor Heath, Councilmen Barnes, Adams, Towner (from 7:39) Snyder (from 7:41) Others Present: Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk Mr. Thomas Dosh, Public 'Services Director Mr. Harry Co Williams, City Attorney Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Director (from 7:41) Absent: Mr, George Aiass.a, City Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 13, 1961 - Motion by Councilman Barnes„ seconded by Council- man Adams, and carried, that the Minutes be ap- proved as submitted. 0 CITY CLERK"S REPORTS PROJECT C-96 LOCATION: West side of Irwindale, Accept Street Improvements south of Rowland Avenue. Martin & Wei r.Z APPROVED Authorize release of Fidelity and Casualty Co. Performance Bond No. S-121 9632 in the amount.of $1,538.91, subject to Notice of Completion procedure. Staff recommends accep- tance and release of bond which includes the following stem, PROJECT C-154 Accept Street Improvements Martin & Weisz APPROVED LOCATION: Lark Ellen Avenue at two locations - one north of Vine Avenue on the east sides and one south of Merced Avenue on the west side. . Subject to Notice of Completion pro- cedure. Bond is combined and to be released with Project'C-96o Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Adams, And car- ried, that street improvements in Project C-96 and Project C=154 be accepted, and authorization given for the release of the Fidelity and Casualty Co. Performance Bond No, S-121 9632 in the amount of $1,538.31 subject to Notice of Completion procedures, TRACT NO. 13867 - Lot Noo 32 LOCATION: West side of Lark Ellen Accept Street Paving Avenue, south of Michelle Improvements Street. Martin & Weisz APPROVED Co Ca 11-27-61 Page Two TRACT NO. 13867 - Continued Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Barne§,'and'dar- kidd, that street paving improvements be acceptedo No bond invol- ved. PRECISE PLAN NO, 263 Shoe,.Corpo of America Accept Street Improvements APPROVED LOCATION. Southeast corner -of Orange And Service Avenues. Authorize release'of Firemen°s Fund Insurance Co, - Bond _ in__th6. _ amount of $68,000.00. Staff recommends acceptance and bond release. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman AdamsD_And'd�ik- ried, that street improvements in Precise Plan No. 263 be approved and authorization given for relea-te of Firemen's Fund Insurance Co. Bond in the amount of $68,000.00. PROJECT NO. C-117 Accept Temporary Traffic Signal Improvements L. A. County Road Dept. APPROVED LOCATION-. Vincent and South Garvey Avenues Accept temporary traffic signals subject to Notice of Completion procedure. Acceptance recommen- ded by staff. •Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and car- ried, that temporary traffic signal improvements in Project No. C-117 be accepted, subject to Notice of Completion procedure. PROJECT NO. C-161. Approve Plans and Specifica- tions and authorize Call for Bids APPROVED AS STIPULATED LOCATION.- City Corporation Yard 825 South Sunset Ave. To approve plans and specifica- tions for this project - concrete floor and foundation plan for shop buildings, and authorize City Engineer to call for bids. Author- ize City Engineer to receive infor- mal bids on electric and plumbing installations. Mr. Dosh indicated a request by the City Manager, prior to this meeting, to hold this matter over as he had not reviewed the esti- mates, or have it approved subject to his review. A motion was made by Councilman Towner, and seconded by Councilman Barnes to approve this matter and call for formal bids and infor- mal bids on electric and plumbing installations subject to prior approval of the City Manager. Before the question, however, the City'Attorney reviewed the cost of all the items included in this Project and stated that if the entire project exceeds the amount of $2500.00, bids must be duly advertised. It isn't a matterof a particular item exceeding $2500.00 and another not exceeding that amount, the test is, "does the entire project exceed $2500.00 and if it does:, each item has to be advertised separately for bid," and if the 'total cost exceeds $2500.00 his recom- mendation is to advertise for bids in order to comply with the law. -2- Ca Co 11-27-61 PROJECT NO. C-161 - Continued Page Three It- was aAndicated - that three separate contracts Were still -desired and the'City Attorney reiterated that this was'per°fectly all right • �nestianatethattheamountis 'over advm�overall 'three- since 3t is shown.. $2500 0 00 a around the hinount of $4500o00, and according to the government code it would mean ad- vertising for bids. The motion of Councilman Towner, and the second of Councilman Barnes were withdrawn, Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and car- ried, that the Plans and Specifications in Project No, C-161 be'ap- proved and The City Engineer authorized -to call for formal bids, subject to prior approval of the City Manager. Indications from Council, were that in the matter of either three separate bids on this item, or one over all bid, would be left to the discretion of staff. TENTATIVE MAP OF LOCATION,,, South side of Virginia TRACT NO. 27022 Avenue, between Grand Louis Brutocao Avenue and Mesa Drive. HELD OVER TO DECEMBER 11, 1961 805 Acres - 21 Lots - Area Dis- trict III • Approval recommended by Planning Commission November 1, 1961. Held over from meeting of November 13, 1961. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and car- ried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 27022 be held over to the next regular meeting of the City Council at the applicant's request. TENTATIVE MAP OF LOCATION° Northeast corner of TRACT NO. 26966 Azusa and Cameron Joyce Aldahl & John Avenues. F. Richards APPROVED AS STIPULATED 8.88 Acres - 30 Lots - Area Dis- trict II -A Approval recommended by Planning Commission on November 1, 1961. Held over from meeting of November 13, 1.961. for block study and report. Mr. Joseph: Several considerations were given here and the reason no written re- port was presented is that we were still considering the sub -division and talking about this, staff -wise, until quite late and thought it would be quite proper to present this • to you at the present time. If you recall, the first map had lots backing up to Cameron Avenue and there was a question whether we should do that at all and if we do, provide some sort of landscaping treatment outside of the wall to make a more appealing appearance to drivers of cars along Cameron. The question came up and a motion was made to hold this over to per- mit a study to be made to see whether some other street patterns would work. -3- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Four TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO, 26966 - Continued Mr.. Joseph - Continued • We prepared this'one first of all, which followed the lin6 somewhat of what­Council'and Commission were considering in carrying -the --- street along here, not necessarily having an alley"here9.but instead-` having driveway -turnarounds on'Camerono' This, as you see, would lose - the 'subdivider one lot giving him 26 instead of 27 .he -indicated. -' _How= dv6r, we still have'the problem of every lot, if there were turnarounds, having direct access out to Cameron. We could prohibit the end lots having access to Cameron by facing them to the side streets here. There was also the question regarding the church -up here'o You can" see the Wash extends on through this J g general area. These back ­lots would front on the back end of the church property. The only thing separating these from the church would be a block wall and there was -- no provision at the time the church went in for any landscaping -treat- ment. You have cars coming to this wall and heading in on off-street parking, In additon there is a problem in this general area where you have - the Wash which comes in at some undetermined line which may affect carrying through a street at this location. We talked of elongating cul-de-sac and cul-de-sac this but felt it would be substandard in nature and wouldn't work out. We could reduce the size of the street to 52-feet to gain eight more feet but felt this possibly wouldn't be too appropriate and even with the eight foot gain it would still lose the developer one lot. The second proposal before you was a back-up lot treatment. I was directed by the Commissionto ask for a joint session with the Council to review the possibility of back-up lot situation with landscaping outside because the Commission felt there were certain ramifications involved which might not come out at a single session of the Council without the benefit of discussion with the Commission. There is one other proposal we have come up with. This is the same piece of property and we used a cul-de-sac treatment off of Cameron to line up with the streets on the south side of Cameron and the developer is able to realize 28 parcels instead of 27 parcels. How- ever, these cul-de-sacs are substandard with a R/W of 50-feet and a radius of 35-feet instead of the required 50-foot radius as called for in the ordinance. However, since the distance to Cameron Avenue is so shallow we haven't checked with the Fire Department as to tur- ning radius although this may be the answer to this here. A same situation has been before you on Cameron and Valinda and you realized a similar solution to a difficult piece of property there. There is 572 lineal footage here while the other plan had 1360 lineal feet so there is a substantial saving.of footage on street •here, also. We could prohibit traffic directly out on Cameron, Crossing Cameron wouldn't be too difficult as it wouldn't go any- where through here and would come to Cameron and then move in either directions The Commission has not seen this plan, it was worked out by staff, nor have they seen this other plan. The recommendation to Council from the Commission is back-up lots, providing.landscape treatment be made along that wall to shield it, so we have these various study plans. -4- Co Ca 11-27-61 Page Five TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO, 26966 —Continued Mr. Joseph - Continued Sub -standard cul-de-sacs have been approved in other'areas'of the City where the situation allows. However, no other staff people, including the.Fire Department, have seen this as yet. Councilman Towner asked how much.of the cul-de-sac would be improved for street purposes and Mr. Joseph stated this reduced the parkway from "10-feet to 5-feet so it would be almost the same relative to improvement. Mr. Williams -stated this did not have to go back`to'the Planning Cbrhmission', a statement made in the light of a question put to the developer as to his time, and he stated they had another two week extension but if it had to go back to the Commission "'we are cooked." The developer then asked if the slopes had been also taken into" consideration and Mr. Joseph indicated they had been, and in con- ferring with Mr. Dosh it was felt the cul-de-sacs may drain ade- quately through easements, etc. Mr, Dosh: We have a similar situation on Cameron west of Citrus on the north side. We have developed cul-de-sac streets, three and four in a row, although the lot has slightly more area and a little larger cul-de-sac, but the princi- ple is the same. At the rear of the cul-de-sacs it is considerably •lower than 10-feet and an underground system takes water out fur- ther north. It is possible to drain these streets by drain at rear westerly to Azusa or drain easterly lots straight into the Wash and westerly cul-de-sacs drained to Cameron Avenue by raising lot pads, possibly some 3-feet. Councilman Barnes: In regards to draining, I wonder if this type of development would be better for a.drain which goes to Azusa on the.upper northeast corner of map 3A where you have a problem and if it wouldn't be solved easier with this type of devel- opment. Before,we had a block wall along Cameron but still had a drainage problem. Then another plan with a street running along Cameron which Mr. Joseph stated had drainage problems at the north- east corner of map #ZA. Mr. Dosh: It isn't so much of a drainage problem but of constructing the street properly. There was the problem of the Wash in the first plan and he could hardly build unless there was a tremendous retaining wall,. Councilman Barnes asked how is that solved with this plan and Mr. Dosh indicated that the upper two lots could be left off th&'map until such time as there is development of the storm drain" or'build on the lots and protect them, Councilman Barnes: We need adequate protection so far as storm drains are concerned. Developer: This wouldn't be any different than houses on the other side now, -5- Co Co 11-27-61 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT No. 26966 - Continued Page Six Councilman Snyder asked the developer if this map was acceptable to him. The reply was that it was felt this was still not.as good as • the original and felt it was as broad as it is long in that they would possibly gain in one way but lose in another, although this is more difficult in that almost every house would have to be de- signed to fit every lot whereas this would not have to occur in the presented plan. However, it was agreeable to the developer, if some- what reluctantly, Councilman Adams stated that the developer would be saving quite a bit on street improvements relative to this pro- posed idea, Mayor Heath asked what the staff recommendation was on binding the developer for the Wash condition at the northeast corner of the property. He noted that just to the east of this there was a re- quest at one time to develop that property and the owner was told he needed a 6-foot culvert placed in the ground at a great deal of cost. There will, eventually, also have to be a culvert placed at the northeast corner of this piece of property, too. Mayor Heath further stated that after this subdivision is approved he did not believe that we can then request the developer to put in this cul- vert so he thought that any such conditions should be stipulated at this time. Councilman Towner- I think we could approve this according to the latest pro- posal shown by the staff, elim- inating provision No. 1 of the requirements and changing provision No. 6 regarding the walls to provide only that there be a wall on the westerly side of the property. I do not know if we actually need one at the north side as it seems there was a wall required on the church precise plan, is that correct? Mr. Joseph: That is correct, pending devel- opment on the south. The City Attorney questioned as to whether the street specifications ordinance permit variance and Councilman Towner stated he was of the opinion that it could be changed if it was done by approval of a subdivision and that it had been done in the past. Councilman Towner: Another proposal would be that access to Cameron and Azusa be dedicated to the City and drai- nage be done suitable to the City Engineer and so far as I am con- cerned the provision on the Wash is satisfactory because we do not know now of the alignment, what it will be. It is unusual to have the subdivider put in.a culvert which may not line up with the fu- ture Wash. I think we.could permit the 50-foot_ street and, the 35- foot radius with 5=foot dedication. Councilman Snyder questioned as to whether there wasn't something to do with the corner of Azusa and Cameron regarding signals, holding that up pending this, and Mr. Joseph indicated that it had been in- dicated that the church to the north was acting to acquire this property although no final word has been received on this. If they do proceed, they want to use the property for additional off-street parking and gain access from it to Cameron. If it is not bought you have a piece of property on the corner left vacant. Mr. Dosh stated that the approval of the Commission was also related to that indi- cated as 'not a part'. Mr. Williams stated that part could be de- signated as one single lot, Mr. Williams also stated he did not think that legally this would be required to be sent back to the Commission as the subdivider hasn't proposed this, the staff has. -6 - Co Co 11-27-61 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 26966 - Continued Page Seven Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder that Tentative Map of Tract No. 26966 be approved subject to the con - AM ditions as specified by the Planning Commission with the excep- tion of Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 6 and in lieu thereof that a 50-foot right-of-way and a 35-foot radius cul-de-sac be provided with 5-foot dedication; that drainage suitable to the City Engineer be provided and these conditions pertain to the four cul-de-sac street proposal presented by Mr. Joseph and acceptable to the subdivider. Before the question: 40 Mayor Heath: Councilman Towner: see how it can be provided for channel is going to goo I do not see how this covers the northeast corner if you put in the 60-foot diameter culvert in that corner it ex- tends into the man's property. That is correct. If you do that you will have to condemn and put it through there. But I do not today when we do not know where the Mayor Heath: How can you put this stipulation on another piece of property to the east? Now this man doesn't have to do a thing because it is not stipulated in the tentative map. All we need is a sentence that at some future date this man will be responsible for providing some suitable underground drain- age in compliance with the City plan at that time. Councilman Barnes. Or if these two particular lots do not develop until such time as the drain is put in at the northeast corner of this subdivision. I feel they should provide drainage. Mrs. Samuels: The property east of this is only six acres. There has been a cost estimate made on the kind of drain you are talking about, The owner has an estimate of $60,000.00 or $10,000.00 an acre to put in a major storm drain for flood control which seems impossible to impose on a property owner in such an a- mount. The answer to this matter from staff was very general and staff did spend a great deal of time studying it. But if that prop- erty to the east is ever going to be developed, that storm drain cannot be required at the expense of the owner. It is an expense for the general. public welfare far beyond any reasonable amount, it prohibits the development and sale of property in other words, Councilman Snyder: That is a major storm drain and doesn't just drain this area, Mrs. Samuels: There was no Wash improvement required east of Hollenbeck, then you come west and there is under discussion a drain of prohibitive cost expected to be imposed on the property owner, Mayor Heath: I will withdraw my comments. -7- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Eight TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 26966 - Continued Mayor Heath then asked the question and the motion regarding this Tract No. 26966 was approved, unanimously. At this time Mayor Heath welcomed Mayor Breceda of the City of Irwindale in attendance at this meeting. SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS PROJECT NO. C-155 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Street Improvement Sunkist and Merced Awarded to Kirkland Avenues. Paving Co. Bids received at 10:00 a.m., November 16, 1961 in the office of the City Clerk as advertised. Notice of Publication has been received from the West Covina Tribune on November 2 and 9, 1961 and as a news item in the Green Sheet on November 2, 1961. The bids received were as follows - Kirkland Paving Company $3,672.95 . W. R. Wilkinson Company 3,806.38 Martin & Weisz 3,813.14 Aman Bros. 3,816.77 A. Jo Beinschroth 3,8.5.1.27 Do & W. Paving Contractor 3,876.36 E. Ho Philip Smith 5,672.00 All bids contained 10% bid bonds. Recommendation of staff was that the bid awarded be awarded to the Kirkland Paving Company as lowest responsible bidder. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder that the bid on Project C-155 be awarded to Kirkland Paving Company, as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $3,672.95 and that all other bids and bid bonds be returned to the unsuccess- ful bidders. Motion passed on roll call as follows - Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None CAB -AHEAD, 1250-GPM Bids were received at 10:00 a.m., TRIPLE -COMBINATION PUMPING November 16, 1961 in the office ENGINE FIRE TRUCK of the City Clerk. iBid awarded to Crown Coach Corp. Notice of Publication has been received from the West Covina Tribune on November 2, 1961 and as a news item in the Green Sheet on October 27, 1961. • Ca Co 11-27-61 Page Nine CAB -AHEAD, 1250-GPM PUMPING ENGINE FIRE TRUCK - Continued The Seagrave Corporation F.O.B. West Covina (letter of explanation $24,959.00 accompanying bid) 998.36 Sales Tax $25,957.Total Crown Coach Corporation F.O.B. West Covina $25,151.87 1,006.07 Sales Tax $26,157o Total Mack Trucks, Inc. No Bid All bids contained 10% bonds. The City Clerk read the third page of the report from the Fire Chief which in essence indicated the equipment now in the City, interchange ability of parts, necessity for quick service to the City, etc. Mayor Beath asked if Seagrave has a local office and a representa- tive present from that Company indicated that it hado In Los Angeles, asked the Mayor, and the gentleman again indicated in the affirmative. Parts, complete warehouse, questioned the Mayor, and again the answer was yes. Councilman Towner asked whether or not Seagrave parts and Crown parts are interchangeable and a representative from one of the Companies indicated they were to some degree, quite a few basic components are with regard to axle, transmission, both groups have same motor, pumps are different, body parts; radiator; fenders are different. But some of the basic components are definitely the same. Mayor Heath-, I believe when we authorized the City Manager to go for bid that it was stated we would get the bid but not necessarily go for a contract until more information was obtained concerning the fire station and to my knowledge we have no such infomation nor know where we stand, whether we'll have it tomorrow, next dear or 10 years from now. Councilman Barnes-, Mayor Heath. - putting such a piece of equipment stations are full now, Mr. Dosh-, I think, that Mr. Aiassa wanted this bid out while building the fire station because of the time it would take to get a new pumper. What is the status of the fire station? When are we going to get that? I wouldn't approve outside and I believe that both To my knowledge we have not re- ceived final appraisals yet. Councilman Towner asked how long it would take to construct one of these machines and the Fire Chief indicated this would be on a.180 day basis, Mayor Heath questioned whether it could be delivered sooner and the Fire Chief stated that he believed it might be. Mayor Heath then asked how long it takes to build a fire station and Mr. Dosh indicated possibly three or four months, Then..Mayor Heath stated that if this bid is awarded we are obligated to re- ceive the engine as soon as it is finished and possibly this should be held until Mr. Aiassa returns. Councilman Barnes indicated there would be no reason, insofar as he was concerned, that this matter -9- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Ten CAB -AHEAD, 1250-GPM PUMPING ENGINE FIRE TRUCK - Continued Councilman Towner - Continued •couldn't be held pending Mr. Aiassa°s return because he felts too, that perhaps there is a need to know more about it insoftr'as the question on the different equipment, He indicated there had been a good report given on the different equipment but he would like to see an even better one on the two pieces in question. Mayor Heath asked if the present stall in'the fire buildings were full and the Fire Chief stated that they were but it had been an- ticipated that the 1951 pick-up would be moved to the outside and that it was his belief that a City of 50,000 with first line equip- ment date 1951 should possibly accept bids for newer equipment as soon as possible. He further went on to state that today we had a first line piece of equipment out of service due to age which left two major districts 5-miles apart and that he would have to recommend this engine on the basis of size, complexity and square mileage of servicing the City and it necessary stall the old piece of equipment outside, the pick-up, which isn't uncommon, But we do have a place to store first line equipment. Mayor Heath indicated the point was well taken but he still did not know if we are going to have the fire station even two years from now and he had received no information on this and in the light of what the Chief had said maybe two weeks postponement wouldn't be too good but it would clarify a situation for him. Councilman Barnes asked if the Chief had any objection to the idea • of this postponement and the Fire Chief stated "no, but this piece of equipment is something;we need today, even yesterday as they say.t4 Mr. Williams indicated the condemnation report is being waited for but this isn't a case where you can get immediate possession and if you must proceed with litigation it might wait for months before you can get it. Mayor Heath reiterated he would still Like to wait for Mr. Aiassa and Councilman Snyder stated he had no objection to doing so, Coun- cilman Barnes indicated he had no strong objection but he would pos- sibly like to see the bid go in so we do not have to rush the buil- ders of a new fire engine and sometimes there is the putting of pressure where it shouldn't be placed such as on new pieces of fire equipment. Mayor Heath asked if the award was given could it be held until called for and it was indicated by both Company representatives 'that it could although not held indefinitely. Councilman Towner stated that he felt it was high time we got this fire station building, that it had been delayed longer than any pro- ject in the City, There had been every bit of cooperation possible from the Fire Department to get this thing off the ground and the blame can only be placed with Council, and here we go again delaying • this fire station program two weeks more which is the maximum it can stand. Mayor Heath stated he would withdraw his comments if the Company selected would hold the equipment until called for. Councilman Towner indicated that he was not so sure but that is what happens anyway as they won't deliver until it is paid for and we won't get it until we pay for it. n U Co Co 11-27-61 Page Eleven CAB -AHEAD, 1250-GPM PUMPING ENGINE FIRE TRUCK - Continued Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes that the contract for the Cab -Ahead, 1250-GPM Triple -Combination Pumping En- gine Fire Truck be awarded to the Crown Coach Corporation in the amount of $26,157.94, in accordance with the recommendations of the Fire Chief. Motion passed on roll call as follows; Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None Mayor Heath however again questioned as to a hold stipulation in the motion and Councilman Towner stated that we had this money in the budget, and we should pay for it and get it into the City even if it has to be parked in the backyard. ADJOURNMENT To Monday, December 4, 1961, if it looks like the remainder of the Agenda is more than 1/2 hour long after 12 midnight, Council agreed, HEARINGS DISTRICT A°11-59-3 Changes In The Work Proposed To Be Done hearing this date by Resolution of posed to be done No. 2236 passed by ular meeting of November 13, 1961. Hearing of protests or objec- tions tothe modifications in the work to be done in Caroline Street, Danes Drive and Baymar Avenue Sewer District. Set for Intention to Change Work Pro - the City Council at their reg- The City Clerk stated the record should show that notice of this public hearing had been published in the West Covina Tribune on November 16 and 23, 1961. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and stated all those desiring to present protests or objections should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. There were no objections or protests, written or oral, and the hearing was declared closed. A gentleman in the audignce had some questions he desired answered, which was done, and then he was further referred to staff if he felt the questions had not been clarified to his satisfaction. RESOLUTION NO. 2247 ADOPTED Mayor Heath: The City Clerk presented: °A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS OF THE WORK TO BE IN ASSESS- MENT DISTRICT A111-59-3 ON CAROLINE STREET AND OTHER STREETS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE CITY" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution, Co C. 11-27-61 Page Twelve RESOLUTION NO, 2247 - Continued Motion by Councilman Towner, 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, 2247. INSTALLATION OF SANITARY Continuation of hearing of pro - SEWER DISTRICT A-11-59-3 tests and/or objections to for- ming 1911 Act Assessment District to cover installation of sanitary sewers in Caroline Street, Danes Drive and Baymar Avenue Sewer Dis- trict. Set for hearing on November 13, 1961, by Resolution of In- tention No, 2207 passed by the City Council at their regular meeting of October 9, 1961, Continued to this date. Mayor Heath asked if there were any written protests received and the City Clerk stated there was one written protest from F. Mc- Cullough of 121 North Baymar Avenue, Lot 52 in Tract No. 17547, The Mayor then asked if there was any reason stated for protest in this communication and the City Clerk stated there was not, it was just a notice of protest. Mayor Beath asked if the writer was present in the audience and no one rose to the question, He further asked if there was anyone else desiring to present protest or objection to this sewer district and no one rose to the question. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and car- ried that the protest be overruled, The Mayor declared the hearing closed, RESOLUTION NO. 2248 ADOPTED Mays° Heath - The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING WORD TO BE DONE ON CAR- OLINE STREET AND OTHER STREETS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SAID CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO, 22071, (A"//-.s9.3) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion°by Councilman Adams, ­seconded by Councilman Barnes, 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, 2248, -12- 9 • Co CO 11-27-61 Page Thirteen Mayor heath declared a recess. Council reconvened at 9-05 P.M. PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN No. 292 Walter La and Phoebe Co Schroeter LOCATION-. Southeast cornet of Pacific Avenue and Pacific Lane APPROVED AS STIPULATED Request for Adoption of Precise Plan of Design approved by Plan- ning Commission Resolution No. 1110. Hearing request by Council. Dearing closed October 30, 1961 and decision held over to November 13th, and again. to November 27, 1961a Councilman Barnes-. I donot feel the setback is ad- equate between the block wall and the building. I feel the trash will eventually be put out behind these buildings. I foresee pos- sibly a restaurant at some time or other going into the area and I do not feel that taking _trash or garbage to the front is going to en- hance our City. I also feel the block wall should extend as far west as possible and also the drainage problem at that corner should be resolved because during this last rain the lawns in that area were flooded again at Morris Avenue, We have to control the water in that area to see that it flows westerly and I think this drainage should be provided. Councilman Snyder-. Councilman Barnes-. drainage was to be taken care of go over property owners lawns. Councilman Snyder-. Councilman Barnes-. Mr, Dosh-, Councilman Snyder-, Councilman Barnes-, Councilman Snyder-. Is there any way on this particu- lar plan that they have control, over the water, they aren't cau- sing the water. At this particular corner the drain was to be provided for prior 'to this development. The so it would drain off and wouldn't Wouldn't the curb cut do that? I hope so. I do not think the development of this property, with water draining to Pacific Avenue, will detract or contribute ma- terially to the situation at Morris Avenue, which is bad. That is what I am trying to indi- cate, he didn't create it and can't solve it. But he can solve his part of it. The round curb cut will d® that. Councilman Barnes-. I do not think so. There should be some way of draining water a- way from the corner, However, the most important thing is the setback from residential property. We give everyone a proper setback and lighting control, which is more than is given here. The building is 5 feet away from the fence and property owners will. be looking directly at the back end of buildings over the walla -13- C . Co 11-27-61 Page Fourteen PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 292 - Continued Councilman Towner asked if property owners were present at the meeting of Commission relative to this referral and Mt. Joseph indicated they had been notified and were present. Councilman Towner stated that since the representatives from both sides had been present and since the Commission had worked out a reasonable compromise it would seem this matter has been solved. Councilman Barnes asked if there were any questions from owners as to flood control and a Mr. Lander stated they had not been answered since they were not asked. Mayor Heath- I feel there should be a definite change in the rear of these buil- dings - moving them forward. I stated at the last Council meeting that I was in favor of a large enough area between back of buildings where trash could be easily removed. And a wall at the present time there is less than 5 feet or 416t. if you want to split hairs and this is a narrow passage- way. I can't for the life of me see taking trash and garbage through buildings or a store itself when business is being transacted. I do not think X would go into a store a second time if while. I was doing business I would see someone running out, with trash or -garbage, garba.ge, and therefore I feel there should be trash pick-up at the rear of the building with access to it. I am not in favor of this plan and feel it would be better to move the buildings three or four feet forward. It may mean losing a few parking spaces but there still would be ample available there through slight modification of this kind and might be presentable, but this, I can't see at all. Councilman Barnes- There should be access to the rear and trash taken out to the rear of the buildings. I can't see this development at all, es- pecially across from residential property. Councilman Towner- 1, agree with Councilman Barnes and Mayor Heath on one point, requiring trash to be picked up at the front, which is maybe not too wise, and it seems we could allow it to be picked up at the back so long as it is south of the screened ornamen- tal wall. This sounds reasonable to me and would hide it both from , the front and back. The other points I disagree with. Councilman Barnes. Fifteen feet through should be provided for trucks to get in to pick up trash. I do not think this is going to be much more than what is picked up at home in the neighborhood and I feel this should be picked up at the rear of the building and not the front. I do not feel we are asking too much here because I do not know of another development in the.City such as this with being picked up at front of -the building. Councilman Adams had no comments. Mr. Williams indicated that the concern regarding collection of trash at the rear of the buildings was that the Commission wouldn't want the trash dumped over the 6 foot fence in order to be picked up. So the conditon could be imposed that trash be carried out through the gates A motion by Councilman Barnes to deny Precise Plan No. 292 failed for lack of second, -14- Co Co 11-27-61 PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO, 292 - Continued Page Fifteen Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner and car- ried that Precise Plan of Design No. 292 be approved subject to •the original conditions of the Planning Commission, with the excep- tion that the trash shall be picked up at the rear of buildings but isn't to be loaded over the wall, and also subject to the additional recommendations of the Planning Commission Nose 1,2,4 and 5, elimina- ting Condit%on Nc. 3, as stated in the memorandum to Council. Council.min Barnes and Mayor heath voted "no"'. VARIANCE NO. 363 LOCATION. Service Avenue, between Barker Bros, Richland and Sunset FIELD OVER AT APPLICANT'S Avenues, REQUEST Re4iest to reduce required number of parking stalls in Zone C-2 denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1119. Appealed by ap- plicant October 26, 1961. Field over from November 13, to this date. Motion by Councilman Snyder, - seconded by Councilman Towner and car- ried, that Variance No. 363 be held over at the request of the appli- cant to the next regular meeting of December ll,, 1961, and hearing continued until that date. ZONE CHANGE NO. 202 LOCATION'. 120 North Orange Avenue DENIED between Garvey and Work - PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN man Avenues. NO. 295 Otis Do Harbert and Carl L. Mossberg Resolutions No. 1123 and 1.124, 2, 19610 Request to reclassify from zone R-A to zone C-.`F and request for adoption of precise plan of de- sign denied by Planning Commission Appealed by applicant on November Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and all those desiring to present testimony were sworn .In by the City Clerk, Mr. Harold L. Johnson-, .1 am speaking on behalf of the applicants and my comments are directed toward the request for zoning and appeal and aren't comments about the precise plan. There has been read into the record the Planning Commission resolu- tion and I would like to comment on the various points to substan- tiate our basis for appeal, Number one is clears citing the existing .zoning adjacent to sur- rounding property. Item 3 is not exactly correct. This is a legal statement rather than a practical one. The property to the south isn't in the same ownership as the subject application, it so hap- pens the, records will show one of the applicants .in this subject ap- plication is -the owner of the property to the south. With respect to our request, we have now filed for hearing,on a revised precise plan which attempts to conform to the recommendations Previously submitted by the staff to pr®vide a better buffer with re- spect to the residential property to the north. We have been able to conform to all their requirements with the exception of the front setback on Orange Avenue. The recommendation was fc%-, a 25-foot -15- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Sixteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 202-Continued setback to Line up with the existing residential property to'the north, it states one property to the north, and it is with inter •est, I am sure, that the house to the north is at'least-_50 to 75 feet easterly of the property line of Orange Avenue located in such a manner that it sides onto existing office use to the east. The existing office use to the east of this subject pkopekty isn°t buffered to subject property, there is screen fence, and -'a wall, exists of variable heighth so residence to the north is already affected by existing commercial so our application wouldn't be det- rimental to property to the north but will, enhance property at this time. We hold that the highest and best use of land isn't residential for many reasons and many you have heard before in such zoning cases. We are located close to one of the most fantastic interchanges in the City. This interchange and network of roads and highways takes traffic to and from freeway, frontage roads, City of Baldwin Park, and County and City areas to the north. This lot, because of that traffic and existing access, isn't satisfactory for first class residential homes. In addition to this fact„ there exists along thE. frontage of this property an abnormal drainage structure of' -consider- able magnitude which would take many dollars to replace and residences will not and could not carry this structure as proposed by the City Engineer, as against what we propose here. Because of surrounding uses, sign a smaller building which cent property to the north we Mr, 0. Do Harbert 421 South Citrus West Covina and because we have been able to de - will become compatible to the adja- believe our appeal should be grantedo The property has been owned a number of years by Mr. Mossberg and myself. Prior to that I owned it and sold it then bought it back after Mr. Walsh built his office in there. Mr. Walsh is a civil engineer who owns property immedi- ately back of this or fronting on Fang Avenue, I bought this with the intention of possibly putting a similar office in there eventually but as it happened nothing came in for that use and a short time ago I learned of an opportunity to build an office for the ABC of the State, We obtained a set of plans and talked to the local supervisor about that and found that this particular loca- tion would be quite satisfactory even though they had originally set it up for El Monte. Since I happened to own the other State building there I thought this might be a good location for this and decided to try to get this zoned to fit and went ahead and made a bid ,on.it. Even though the Commission turned it down, I explained to the State our zoning wasn't firmed as yet but that we were further attempting to get it made that way. This is where we stand now. We have no idea of putting in a filling station, restaurant or something like • that. It is an office type location so we feel C-1 zoning is justified. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared,'closedo Councilman Snyder: I do not criticize the Commission for trying to follow the princi- ples of good planning but I am at a loss to understand arriving at this decision. This property doesn't appear to be useful for anything other than C-lo The drain- age structure to the west as to the cost of covering wouldn't be sup- ported by R-1 and such a use would stick out like a sore thumb in the -16- C. C. 11-27-61 ZONE CHANGE NO. 202 - Continued Page Seventeen middle of C-1 property. The property to the north has an old house on it set a way back and from Orange Avenue through to Lang. Pos- sibly the owner could put in multiple use on that property and make a good buffer between C-1 here and residential north. But the main reason for my remarks is, I see no other use, certainly not R-1. Councilman Barnes: I can't quite agree here. There is behind this some office buil- dings, which I am sure this could be, zoned R-p or R-3 much better with buffering residential to the north. I feel this is too heavy a use for this particular lot. It is a small lot. We do have a drainage problem, however, that drainage problem, I hope will possibly be solved by the Badillo Drain. Orange Avenue used to be a flood area and there is water but still we must consider what the property to the north is and I do not feel this is best use adjacent to R-1 property. A lighter use perhaps, then have commercial out in front. I do not feel this is good zoning. To the question of Councilman Towner, Mr. Joseph explained why R-p zoning couldn't be used in this case. Councilman Adams: In looking at the master plan study I have seen that this would fit in very well with.the C-P zone sugges- ted, but which we do not have but could very well have later, and I think it would be appropriate to that area. Until we have this C-P use, however, I would go with the Commission, as a jump to C-1 would be quite a bit without buffer although not necessarily R-1 here. I would go with the recommendation submitted by the Commission. Councilman Towner: I am inclined to go along with the theory that the proposed use is appropriate in the area and the plan is adequate but if you put in C-1 zoning, there can be many things put in if he does not get the State office building. Councilman Snyder: The point is, it has been felt this zoning is similar to the suggested C-p and the point on which we recently granted similar zoning on the La Berge property on north Azusa Avenue because it was the closest we now had to the C-p and it will be possibly two years before we get C-P. We all agree, evidently, this isn't suitable for R-1, and how can you make this applicant wait two years for C-P classification before he can develop this. The C-1 squares off this piece of property and it doesn't make any sense to consider anything else here. Councilman Towner: The only problem is the property to the north is presently R-1 in de- velopment. I do not know that I am not persuaded somewhat by what Councilman Snyder says about it and in the absence of some other zoning there is nothing much else we can do with it. Mayor Heath: If to the east there is a profes- sional office ise we are then squaring off professional. not com- mercial in the strict sense of the word. I think it is too much for commercial and a gamble as to getting the ABC here. If it is that the area should be developed uniformly then it would certainly be by R-F there because that is directly east of it and two ?roperties to the south, somewhat. I can't see C-1 here, although h-P might be good. -17- C 0 Co Co 11-27-61 ZONE CHANGE NO, 202 - Continued Councilman Snyder; professional type, And it has been of R-P alreadyo Page Eighteen However, the most logical use in this area would be office uses, although not necessarily of the indicated that we have enough Councilman Barnes stated this might develop as R-3 but Councilman Snyder opinioned it was too small. Mayor Heath thought that the ABC with some stretch of the imagina- tion might qualify for R-P in that it isn't a commercial enterprise in any sense of the word and is much more in accord with the area to the east, Councilman Towner indicated that it would seem the consensus that the proposal of what might go in here is sound, but there is no zoning to put it in and hold to that. In the event the State buil- ding doesn°t come in here perhaps there might be some way to justify a variance. Mr. Harbert indicated there was not timed Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Adams, that Zone Change No. 202 be denied as recommended by the Planning Com- mission. No action on the precise plan since zoning denied. Councilman Snyder voted "No". VARIANCE NO. 366 Shoe Corporation of America HELD OVER TO 12/11/61 ming identifying sign in zone C-2 Resolution No. 11,26. Appealed by LOCATION; 730 South Orange Avenue, between Service and Richland Avenues. Request to permit a nonconfor- denied by Planning Commission applicant November 6, 1961. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and car- ried, that Variance No, 366 be held over to the next regular meeting of the Council at the request of the applicant. HOLLENBECK BRIDGE Mayor Heath; On November 24th a meeting was called at the request of some of the parents of the Cortez School here at the City Hallo. In attendance was Mr. Dosh, myself, representing the City; Mr, John Eastman representing the West Covina School District; Mr. Ranson and Mr. Salsbury from the flood control district and the Mrs. Birchfield, Van Eton, Carpenter and Shastain. Petitions were signed by parents of Cortez School.objecting to.the fact that the Hol,lenbeck Bridge wasn't properly protected to keep the school children from endangering their lives in the newly in-, stalled flood control channel. The old bridge had a.caged walk on the west side where children could walk in safety relative to fal- ling into the channel. Also at that time the Wash was dirt and not as deep as it now is since it has been reworked. The old bridge was removed and made into a four -lane road over the bridge with a 42- inch high hand rail along the bridge and the channel deepened and cement -lined. -18- Co Co 11-27-61 HOLLENBECK'BRIDGE - Continued Mayor Heath - Continued Page Nineteen �It was the opinion of these parents that the condition that exists at this time is a definite hazard and in no way compares with the type of protection that this bridge had before it was replaced. It was my opinion that the bridge in,itself wasn't a hazard but that the concrete lined channel was. The flood control acknowledges the Wash as a hazard in the fact that they lined these washes on both sides with a four or five foot wire fence and if they acknowledge the Wash as a hazard from the side they also.should acknowledge it as a hazard from a bridge and since there was adequate protection for children on prior bridges perhaps it is their responsibility to place a like protection on this bridge. However, the flood control felt they couldn't go intothis venture, The County Counsel was sup- posed to call Mr. Williams as .to whose responsibility it would be to place this adequate protection on this.bridgeo Did they call? Mr. Williams- Yes, they called and you can imagine whose responsibility it is according to County Counsel. There were two things discussed., whether the flood control district was.responsible for restoring this wire protection and it was his opinion that they were not because the City in accepting the revised plans and"specs for a bridge has agreed to accept the new structure in place of the old in full compliance of the County's obligations. This did not obligate the County or City for any protection to children and public other than a contract and whether the County is responsible for re placing that which is removed, apparently it is not as the City has, by written agreement, indicated.it will take this structure as set forth in the plans and specs. The County Counsel doesn't state this opinion Positively but stated that the present thinking is that he will advise the Board of Supervisors as governing body of the flood control district in that the City accepted the structure it would be their responsibility. Each side is right to some extent. We can analyze it by assuming injury.to a child, If death or injury occured from the channel or water,`getting into the channel, it would be the flood control responsibility. Assuming there is any responsi- bility it would depend on what caused the injury, if water in the channel the flood control district is responsible. If climbing, fal- ling, getting caught in the railing it would be City responsibility. However, if there is a reasonable opportunity to correct this without prohibitive expense and there is failure to do so, whether or not that danger exists and I do not know as I haven't seen the bridge..nor am I familiar with it. Councilman Snyder: I think the question here, to me, is in having this bridge any more hazardous than any similar bridges built in other areas. • Councilman Townero If there is hazard to children, which I could conceive there might be, to me it would be the cement ditch and not, the bridge. The fact that the ditch is now there is what makes it a hazard. In any event it is possible the County might assume an equal portion of responsibility on this. We want to pro- tect the children so maybe we can add something on here assuming the ditch is the danger to the children and possibly get some cooperation from the County in a joint expenditure. SKM 0 Co Co 11-27-61 HOLLENBECK BRIDGE, -Continued Page Twenty Councilman Snyder indicated that he still did not think there has been proven a hazard exists here, it is merely an opinion, because the railing isn't higher. Mayor Heath-, Previous Councils, as well as__ this one, I believe, acknowledged' the fact there was hazard on Citrus Street bridge and had a walkway installed and a cage around walkway to keep children from falling into the Wash and that hazard wasn't as bad as what we have here now. Councilman Snyderz crawl through those and this bridge to climb up on and is just as high Mayor Heath-, Councilman Snyder-, Mrs. Shastein-, s� The walkway was installed to get people off the streeto You had a board of slats and they could has a 4-foot rail that they have as any bridge In the United States. But small children can crawl through this railing and the reason for the slat fence was be- cause of the cage on outside and if we had not had that, the State would have required.railing an the fence. I would like to see a child crawl through this mailing. I have had the actual experience of having seen a child of kinder- garten age stick their head through the rails and if they had turned their shoulders they could have gone through Councilman Barnes-, I have gathered from what Mr. Williams has said, that.there'was a possibility of a joint'responsi- .bility with County and.Cityo I, myself,,do not want to prove there is or isn't a hazard existing and would rather prevent anything pas--, Bible happening, Possibly with investigation wo may have more bridges in the City with similar hazards. I think the school district should be contacted because I believe we have Sunset which goes to Sunset School and we may have more than that in the City adjacent to.schoolso I feel very strongly that possibly something should be done.as I` would not want to see a child's life taken or badly injured Councilman Snyder-, But to me we haven't clearly sta- ted why a hazard exists here. Councilman Towner-, I do not believe we want.to com- mit"'ourselves that a hazard exists but for the purposes of meeting the problem we might indicate there is a potential 'liability on`. tYi6i part of the City, but also on the part of the County and recogniz ng'that we may find it to the best iqt�srests of all concerned to put"a small investment in more fences. Councilman Snyder-, There is a greater hazard existing in stepping off a sidewalk onto any of our streets and there is a hazard with a 10-foot fence if they climb up on top of it. C o C o 11-27-61 HOLLENBECK BRIDGE - Continued Page Twenty ®ne Mr. Williams. A hazard may exist where there is no responsibility and I think this is the point Councilman Sny- der is attempting to make. You may correct a hazard even where there is not legal responsibility but normally there would be no legal re- sponsibility unless the railing is more dangerous, hazardous than the general standard appropriate on public bridges generally. I do not know if this is so or isn't so, hereo Let us say this railing is just as good and complies with general standards throughout areas then I believe there is no legal responsibility, but this doesn't necessarily mean there is no hazardo But there is also hazard to every public street and you can diminish the hazard by any method, you see fit but I think there is no legal responsibility or liability. Councilman Towner indicated we should investigate expense involved and possible County participation and Councilman Barnes indicated we do not want just the one bridge but possibly other bridges might be just as dangerous. Councilman Snyder asked what standards are we going to bring these up to? Mayor Heath indicated a report from ,Mr. Dosh in that as a rule of thumb this type of fence would cost about $8.00 a running foot and the Hollenbeck Bridge has a total of 100 lineal feet so at about $8085 a lineal foot it would cost $835.GO. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried that the Mayor be directed to investigate all aspectsof this bridge problem and report back at the next meeting. Councilman Adams - The question of liability should be secondary and could only be resolved in case of accident or injury. If we recognize this as a hazard this should be paramount, not whose responsibility, I think we should state there is a hazard in our opinion and from observing bridges and from indications of the parents involved it is an attractive nuisance or anything else we wish to call it. We take precautions on sw mmi,ng.pools and I think we should go the limit on these bridges. Councilman Barnes stated he agreed one hundred percent. Councilman Snyder indicated that if it is stated a hazard exists without benefit of professional advice and only on own observations you might be making a statement that could be used in a court of law, and there is no professional advice on this being a hazard but is the opinion of Council and .he did not thank that this bridge was any less than standard anywhere else. Councilman Towner-, The motion indicated investigation of hazard, source of funds in which this fencing could be put up, in- cluding County Flood control on basis of their liability.Where funds might..be available from. Councilman Snyder. I would go along with this but not that a hazard exists without getting professional opinion that this bridge is any less safe than any bridge built anywhere else in the County. They build these bridges by experience and have, been building them for years and haven't found people falling off of them. -21- • C. C. 11-27-61 HOLLENBECK BRIDGE - Continued Councilman Adams. Councilman Snyder: Page Twenty Two This is a.different-si.tuation. They are close to -schools and there is nothing more attrac- tive to a youngster than rea- ching over and throwing some- thing into a channel or ditch. Certainly but they are high enough in my opinion to prevent their fal- ling off. Mrs. Birchfield: I couldn't give professional ad- vice on what constitutes a haz- ard but a 3-1/2 foot railing isn't high enough to protect an elementary school child.And in making a check the 42-inches is smaller than our smallest child in school. We have seen children climb on it, stick their feet through it, throw rocks over it and it is highly attractive to them and it is new and if we are not there to watch they go wild. We also have 35 more petitions to present from parents directed to you. (these were presented to the City Clerk for the record). PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 48 Amend the Streets and Highways City Initiated Element of the Comprehensive Gen - APPROVED AS STIPULATED eral Plan of the City of West Covina to realign Valinda Avenue • at its intersection with Glendora Avenue Approval recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1127. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and those desiring to present testimony were sworn in by the City Clerk. Mr. F. Jo Garvey In this matter I represent Mr. Fred 274 East Rowland Avenue Stein through whose property the present street runs and the rede- sign street will run. We believe that any change from the existing design will be benefi- cial to the property of Mr. Stein An that it now runs through the only possible building site there is on the property at the present time. This little white triangle represents the property Mr. Stein owns or has under lease. The present design of the street comes a- cross property at this point and hooks.up with the hook of Vincent Avenue. It is proposed to carry it from the cul-de-sac to join Glendora Avenue Bridge and get across our property at the northerly extreme just a- cross the Wash. If it is approved in'that manner we will, in ac- cordance with the precise plan, be requested to make the necessary dedications of the street. pIf It remains where it is we wont have an building Possibly and itwould y sometime before you had a street because he would not make a voluntary dedication at its pre sent location. As I understand it the only matter before the Council tonight is for alignment of Valinda at its junction with Glendora Avenue be revised and has nothing to do with removal or addition of any other street but whether the best junction of Valinda and Glendora will be as recommended, or some other proposal or remain as presently master planned. --22- Co C o 11-27-61 Page Twenty Three PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 48 - Continued Mr. A. Home I imagine you can presume why I District Manager of am here. We are involved, and Shell Oil Company have 80% completed, construction of a service station conforming to the master plan shown and have received permits from the City, dedicated land, installed curbs and gutter, electrolier, storm drains, etc. We built on precise plan No. 180 and the alignment was the premise in the construction of this service station in the past. What is before Council tonight is one that is an integral part of the study bought and paid for but it is difficult for us to understand what we are now presented with now as against what we previously had present and upon which ourselves, and other people, have based their plans, We do not know how you can consider only a part of it, we feel it should be all studied at this time. It is more than traffic there is alignment of certain corners which were given values which will be upset and we can't understand how you can act on one part and not take the rest into consideration. we acted in all good faith, abided -by what the City asked for and that only 90 days ago or less and now we are confronted with what we think is the beginning of a. large plan and so we eventually wind up with what we consider nothing Insofar as our investment is concerned. I would suggest you treat the entire thing :fairly and with due con- sideration to everybody involved that when you study one part of a change take the entire "nut' and look at it all, and every aspect of i.to Mr. Fo Bandy Mr. Hogan originally dedicated the 3307 Virginia Avenue other portion of Valinda on the West side of Glendora Avenue and I was instrumental in gaining this dedication from him to the City and sale of some of his property. This shows the alignment approved and now you gc% across and connect with Vincent crossing Glendora at this point. At the time the City desired dedication Mr. Hogan and Mr. Clinton were not desirous of dedication nor building so a temporary hook was put into Glendora dumping traffic away from the bottleneck at the freeway. This was studied many times and it was decided as to whether this hook co- incided close enough to the master plan of Valinda to, be considered as Valinda or in line with existing master plan. It was considered it did align close enough to the master plan to be considered Valinda Avenue and with that in mind these corners have both been sold and these people who have bought them expected this traffic. I can see this alignment is better from a traffic standpoint but the fact the streets dedicated and precise plan aspproved'also may entitle these people to some consideration. All of this should be considered at one time instead of just this portion, It is a little bit too late to change that alignment, there has been too much money spento IN REBUTTAL • Mr. Garvey- Mr. Bandy has attempted to indicate that this is really Valinda Avenue. I am not too familiar with any rulings made but I have yet to see any Valinda Avenue signs ,on that hook system at Vincent as it is at the present time and further it is logical to assumed changes will be made in a street; pattern and it isn't necessary to assume there has to be cross traffic. between Va- linda and the hook of Vincent Avenue in this consideration. -23- C� J 0 C . C . 11-27-61 Page Twenty Four PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 48 - Continued Mr, Garvey - Continued I can certainly understand and appreciate the problems of property owners across the way only too well but the important question be- fore you is whether or not you serve entire southwesterly portion of the City drained by Valinda as a semi -secondary highway or other plan is better to run it across as it is at present time, There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed, Councilman Towner: I was under the impression this was a temporary hook and I am wondering whether the hook on Glendora was put on the master plan or considered by some ruling to be considered a part of the master plan? Mayor Heath: Original, intention was to bring Vincent down as shown on Plan B but we ran into trouble with some properties and decided and recommended by 'the State that intersec- tions should be at right angles. As a result the hook was put onto Vincent bringing it into Glendora at right angles. At the time Vin- cent was proposed to be as in Plan B I think that you will find.dis- cussion showed Valinda crossing Glendora to Vincent and then when we put the hook in it we normally assumed the name of Vincent Avenue, Councilman Towner: I am not sure that answers the question whether it became part of the master plan or still ten- tative insofar as City records are concerned. Mr. Dosh: I donot have the correspondence in front of me but I know the State considered it temporary due to the substandard radius. The recommendation from the City Engineer to the City Council when plans were signed by him is in the record of condition of approval and was pointed out when the plans of speci- fications were submitted to City Council for approval, Councilman Towners: This was my impression of it on that basis of not any established right to connect across Glendora* Avenue.. There may under the circumstances be established some right because of improvements to retain at least that portion of the inter- section on the west side of .Glendora, but whether that is true I do not think we have to decide. We are only interested in the realigning of Valinda Avenue and while it would be nice to solve all the problems at the same time we had this under study for a long time and decided we couldn't solve all these problems at one time, With the Shoulder study there was devised Plan B as being the far best traffic solution. Mayor Heath: was always that short blend into shown here. proposed to come section across to Glendora as shown Y would take exception that the small street between Vincent and Glendora was temporary. Valinda Up to Glendora and always a proposal of Vincent be also indicated Vincent and so there would be an island created as -24- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Twenty Five PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO, 48 - Continued Councilman Towner. The peices are undeveloped and I think there is no binding require- ment the City stick by the master plan insofar as undeveloped property is concerned. I do not think people on west side have bought any property right on the east con- nection. They may have interest in it but.ha.ve no right to have it continue that way. We need to look to the over all planning for City traffic and the new alignment is best. Councilman Snyder. This gives a good east -west traf- fic pattern from Glendora to Orange and this new alignment serves traffic best east -west and north -south and the Shell station retains two street frontages and I can't see how they feel they would be dead if they do not have this cut through. Councilman Towner. This was a matter of record and knowledge to the City this was a temporary hook, even if not by them. Mayor Heath: If I remember correctly, the Coun- cil approved that hook coming into Glendora not as a temporary measure because previous Councils felt unanimously that Valinda Avenue to the east of Glendora should remain. It was then determined that hook in Vincent would be firm and under final and not temporary alignment. We made a study in two parts, west and east of Glendora, and I am sure Council. then, and previous Councils, put that hook in as a permanent hook that far and lined it up with Valinda to the east. Councilman Barnes. When that hook was put in, it was put in there to align with Valinda on the east. However, at that time a lot of considerations were given to abandoning that section. I think you and I didn't want to do this, Mayor Heathy because we felt possibly at some future date we would need this for traffic flows I think this we held out for. We felt the traffic flow and pattern would be so great we would need it but nothing was said this would be a permanent hook but we didn't want to jeopardize ourselves by releasing the extension. Mayor Heath. When it first came up, the City Manager indicated it would go to the State and the State refused to accept the blended part of Vincent Avenue because blending was a problem peice to signalize, a traffic hazard and they wouldn't approve it and therefore we moved into the hook. Councilman Snyder. This has nothing to do with Va- linda Avenue alignment''and the hook will remain and we are not setting the master plan insofar ® as the hook is concerned. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes and car- ried that Proposed Amendment No. 48 be accepted according to Plan B and submitted by the Planning Commission as referred to in Planning Commission Resolution.No, 1127. -25- �I Co C. 11-27-61 Page Twenty Six PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 48 - Continued Mayor Heath: I am definitely opposed to Plan E and have been from the time it originated. I am basing this op- position on the fact of the terminus of the traffic of Valinda and Glendora Avenue. I feel the traffic generated in La Puente will go up Glendora and onto the freeway and vice -versa. I feel traffic on Valinda will generate in the City of Industry and also go up to the freeway and I do not feel this indicates any free flow. I favor Plan A because it can be signalized better, better flow and will, in my estimation, disrupt less good planning. Mayor Heath voted "No PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 54 City Initiated HELD OVER TO 12/11/61. A Proposal to amend the zoning provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code relating to flex- ible subdivision policies. Approval recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1125. Mayor Heath opened the public hearing and all those desiring to present testimony were sworn in by the City Clerk, Mrs. E. Samuels We certainly need a flexible type 333 North Citrus of zoning. Perhaps this doesn't West Covina go far enough on the right answer but I am only speaking in favor of flexible zoning although I am not directly in favor of the resolution as proposed. All subdivision now comes under the heading of what is termed organic zoning, some- thing which is going very strong now toward the idea of average lot size. This applies not necessarily to bill or uneven land but any subdivision, rectangular 20 acres and if within area according to 'tiresome gridiron rules allowing 90 .lots maintained as average lot size. If sub -divider sets aside some play area or green belts he is still entitled to get his 90 lots and still protect the area and give more useability to land at lesser cost and a permanent asset to the City in these green belt areas. So any provisions regarding flex- ible planning or zoning in subdivision should be strongly considered instead of sticking to what are now out-moded normally referred to as gridiron pattern, Mr. J. Carlette of 836 No. Fenimore, Covina stated he was in favor but desired to put some questions to Council regarding this and Mayor Heath answered and clarified this matter to Mr. Carletteo There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Due to the fact that the Mayor was not satisfied that everyone had been heard from in regard to this matter, motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner that the hearing be re -opened. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and car- ried, that Proposed Amendment No. 54 be held over to the next regu- lar -meeting date and the hearing continued at that time. -26- Co C. 11-27-61 PLANNING COMMISSION METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION NO. 135-188 .William & Rosalind E. D°Amato APPROVED Page Twenty Seven LOCATION: Northeast corner of Puente and Leaf Avenues 3/4 Acres - 3 Lots - Area District I Approval recommended by Planning Commission November 15, 1961. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and car- ried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-188 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION NO. 135-189 Joseph M. Drasso REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION LOCATION: Southeast side of California Avenue, between Barbara and Vine Avenues. 1.01 Acres - 3 Lots - Area District II Denied by the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 15, 1961. Appealed to Council by applicant, Mr. Rebholtz of.Pond Engineer Company, engineers for the applicant, stated the reason this had been denied by the Commission is that the applicant had requested a decisions However, during the meeting the Commission had tentatively suggested an attempt be made to get together which had -since been done and a willingness had been ex- pressed by other owners of property to perhaps consider a layout more feasible from the Planning Department®s point of view.. It is being requested that this be referred back to the Planning Depart- ment for further study, Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and car- ried, that Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 135-189 be referred back to the Planning Commission and Planning Department for fur- ther study at the request of the applicant. GENERAL MATTERS West Covina Junior Mr. Tony Roberts, President ad - Football Conference dressed the Council indicating that next Sunday, December 3, at 1:30 p.m. there would be the annual players award presented at the Cortez Park playing field and extend ng the invitation to the Mayor, and members of Council, to attend. Insofar as quite a few of the"boys will be moving out and ®going to high school we request',the Mayor to wish them well. The invitation was also extended to the Recreation and Parks Commission. Mayor Heath indicated he could not attend, indicating his reasons, and requested the Mayor Pro Tem, Councilman Towner, to act in his place. Councilman Towner accepted and Mr. Roberts expressed his appreciation and acceptance of Councilman Towner acting on the Mayor`s behalf.- -27- C. Co 11-27-61 GENERAL MATTERS - Continued Page Twenty Eight Mr. Nelson Mr, Nelson indicated the recent 1804 Lighthall Street written communication sent to West Covina the City, and other pertinent parties, in relation to the flooding of his property and damage done due to the recent heavy rains, an occurence which had not happened before, and indicated what he felt was the causes Mr. Dosh stated that he could not honestly say whether the new construction was the cause, although such an occurence here was unusual, or the possibility of the recent SCOA development which would certainly give a great deal more run-off into the area than had previously been there with the vacant, land. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes that the letter of Mr. Nelson be referred to the insurance carrier for its proper disposition and that the Public Services Director, through the City Manager, be instructed to take adequate temporary measures to protect the private property, (It was indicated that the City Clerk shall notify Mr. Nelson of the findings of the insurance carrier so that he may properly pro- ceed from there in the event further c.larificatlion or proceedings are necessary.) •Mrs. Van Dame stated that the Planners should have a representative at all Council meetings so they can get the inside on how Council runs their meetings. At this point a Mr. Gene Kritchevsky of 616 North Eileen, West Covina spoke from the floor, Mr. Gene Kritchevskya At these Council meetings we have generally been at a disad- vantage, at least from a short term point of view, as we have been called upon to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, whereas the council has had no such restrictions, especially with reference to half-truths. It is a matter of public record that a substantial percentage of the voters of West Covina called on•the Council to choose between res- cinding Ordinance 717, putting it on the April election at a cost of $2,000.00 or on a special election at a cost of $8,OOO.00. As matters stood at the start of the last regular council meeting, the Council members agreed to force a special, election due to certain publically stated political considerations and due to the statement of Ralph' lawyer to the effect that they'd still be available for a few months but could make no commitment for April. Subsequently, we called the Council°s attention to a Planning Com- mission meeting held the following Wednesdays At that time the dis- cussion was concerned with the new General Plan for the development of West Covina, and in particular with land use recommendations by the professional planning experts as displayed on a large map which we found quite easy to read. The Councilmen agreed that they pos- sessed inadequate knowledge of the General Plan and its land use proposals. However, they had in fact just finished rezoning another piece of land on north Azusa Avenue after holding it up since July 24 in order to get information on land use proposals of the plan. -28- Co Co 11-27-61 MR, KRITCHEYSKY - Continued Page Twenty Nine They welcomed these recommendations with open arms yet in our case that same nights the plans no longer played the role of the long lost friend. They ignored' our information on the plan°s recommendations for the land at Azusa and Puente Avenues. At any rate, Mayor Heath made a most sensible move, and called a special study session at which the Council could be enlightened officially by Mr. Schatz of Eisner Associates and by our Planning Commission, We were invited as silent spectators. We arrived at the special session, the Council arrived, the Planning Commission was not there. Most of all, Mr. Schatz was not there. The meeting started with a comment by Mayor Heath. He said that the Council should know the land use recommendations of the plan for the property under consideration and if these were inconsistent with Ordinance No. 717, the Council would be foolish to push the election, Next, Mr. Towner who was at the previously mentioned Planning Com- mission meeting stated that it appeared that the plans recommenda- tions were inconsistent with'tL,e Council°s stand on the ordinance. Then, for reasons best known to him he dropped the ball. The plan and its relationship to our case were subjected to a vigorous at- tack of half truth and falsehood. No more did we hear from Mr. Towner by way of elaboration .in his initial heroic statements. Mayor Heath tried to pry ,Loose some information, some definite • statements from our ersatz experts but met with evasions, half truths, and ridiculous distortions of material presented at the General Plan meetings. By the end of the fiasco by some strange reasoning the majority of the Councilmen were ready to vote on the issue without having the complete authoritative information they came to get. We have certainly had our differences with Mayor Heath on Ordinance 717 and related issues. He has generally stated his views in a straight -forward consistent manner, no matter who likes it or other- wise, we respect his views, his forthright manner and what we feel has been a proper attitude towards his position as chairman of the Council. A position which could be easily misused. He certainly displayed the intestinal fortitude of a competent civic leader when confronted by new evidence in our case (evidence with which the Council admitted it was unfamiliar) he called the special study session previously mentioned. By the time the meeting was over the Mayor in a discouraged and disgusted voice was asking why we paid $25,000 for a general, plan but could not get any information con- cerning it. When he .requested such information at that meeting, as on many previous meetings on this floor, we could see the'knife sticking out of his back and could clearly identify the fingerprints on its hilt, • A few direct comments to the Councilmen seemed in order. We would like to point out that we've not yet had.a real opportunity to discuss the issues of the case with the Council. The Council has generally ignored, evaded or could not''understand many of `our ques- tions and pointed statements of past meetings. But hope springs eternal in the human breast and with this renewed hope, I proceed first to review a past bone of contention, protection by precise plan. The Council asked us to be content with protection by pre- cise plan and then indicated on this very floor that such protec- tion was an illusion, a mere hope. This was in a case which had sev- eral Councilmen indulging in some of the fanciest footwork it has -29- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Thirty MR. KRITCHEVSKY - Continued been my pleasure to witness. in our case much was made of the necessity of protecting us from truck traffic. An alley was provided next to our homes with no apparent use to the stores according to all present, It was to bear signs saying "No Trucks" yet in another case signs were deemed inadequate. Many truck drivers interviewed during our petitioning period said that the signs would certainly be ignored due to the convenience of this unnecessary alley. There is no adequate protection of single family homes from such heavily trafficked commercial enterprise8 except through zoned buf- fers. We would like your comments on these statements and demand to hear explanations concerning several other issues, Remember now the whole truth. If we raise our hands to seek the floor you will know that you might have failed to fulfill that obligation to the voters of the City. Why was it said that the property at Azusa and Puente Avenues was labeled C-P and that there should be no limit on boundary of that designation that it; all should be commsLr�cial? Why couldn't it all be residential by the same fallacicus reasoning? Why did Mr. Towner drop the ball and retre_,,at, rapidly to what seemed to be a previously prepared position after his initial comment On the incompatability of the general plan recommendations with the Council's stand? Why did he not specify that the commercial part of C-P was light commercial and therefore, might. not even be compatible with a large • supermarket much less a discount house that weasles its way into C-1 by fancy manipulation of Language. How could Mr. Aiassa take the stand at the special study session which conflicted with previous statements concerning: the offset of arbitrary, inconsistent zoning on p:roper fire and police protection. Perhaps, he was pressured into this stand, He certainly didn't sound like the same man. we tbough,t we kne,,,v, Who rigged the special, meeting so that it could not possibly have accomplished its purpose as stated at the last regular Council meeting? Where was Mr. Schatz? Where was the Planning Commission? When we circulated our successful petition unfortunately for the Council we adhered scrupulously to the events and statements from the Council floor, We usually started with the observation that the Planning Commis-ssiop. (may they rest; in peace) rejected the zone change and precise plan but the Council. overruled them and we didn't know why. A substantial,. percentage said with a knowing, disgusted loolil, "what do you mean you don't-, know why?" We spent a large a- mount of our, valuable petiti.oning time defending the integrity of the Council. After the special study session I for one will be more selective about how I spend my time, If the ,Councilmen since that Thursday fiasco have studied,the truth, • the whole truth and nothing but, the truth we feel, they will view our position in a more kindly fashion than in the past. If not, we feel they are obligated to speak and to be subjected to rebuttal. if we deem it necessary. We want to know where they stand, We want to know why they stand there. We want each man to set up his specific views so that he will, have 9. change to correct any erron- eous impressions he may have used in arriving at bis decisions, -30- C� C� 1.1-27-61 MR, KRYTCHEVSKY - Continued Page Thirty One Before we learn if we are to meet with evasions or with a courageous, forthright approach I would .hike to conclude by correcting an impres- sion that Dr. Snyder voiced on this floor. I wouldn't worry about Mayor Heath bearing the brunt of our campaign. We have enough to go around whether it be a pat -on -the -back or a kick elsewhere. This is not dictated by the fact that each of you may oppose or support us, but by how.you do so. In reference to the dissertation. by Mr. Kritchevsky Councilman Snyder indicated statements made by the various people under oath to speak the truth but isn't Council also under oath to speak the truth, and asked could there be a charge of perjury.relative to Council, members? Mr. Williams stated that perjury includes a number of things and includes statements under oath but that there are many statements that Council does not make under oath but when a Councilman takes his Oath of Office it is deemed it indicated truthfulness in his statements. But perjury is material fact and certain intent, not to be wrong. Councilman Snyder stated he was speaking of opinions and the City Attorney stated that Council is under governmental immunity as to opinions and decisions. • Councilman Towner.- It is pretty difficult to be amiable to be continually spo- ken of as speaking lies or half-truths when, the people who state these things do not do so with entirely clean hands. These people have sown the seeds of suspicion and distrust more than any group in the City has ever done, and that is every one of you. You have indicated and in- sinuated that the Planning Commission denied this matter and Coun- cil granted it for reasons you know not why and this leaves the innuendo that somebody on Council, has their hands in it and because you people have. sown the seeds of suspicion and distrust you have been unable to understand that the arriving at decisions considers all of the facts. In my opinion you should be Eshamed, going about in the City in the manner that you have of 'not being straight -forward. You have specifically and directly insulted me personally in sta- ting that in this study meeting I made a brief statement and then retreated to some pre -conceived position. That is a falsehood and I think further that at the study session although we did not have the planning consultant present but I, myself, was present at the meeting when the consultant presented comments on the area, and the City Manager who explained very carefully that this is a study only, it is not final, it is preliminary recommendations of the • planning consultant and not subjected to public hearing, it.is not finalized but'that the"planning consultant has attempted to' use this as a guide of what we should"'do in this area. At this meeting I tried to do my best to explain what the Planning Com- mission indicated in relation to this area and I have a trans- cription at the time of the consultant's speaking for commercial - professional district in this area. I_tried to convey this to the Council with deliberate intent to give what is best to the City and its citizens owe us consideration to be straight forward and honest and stop sewing seeds of suspicion. -31- 0 1] Co Co 11-27-61 MR, KRITCHEVSKY - Continued Councilman Snyder: Councilman Barnes: Page Thirty Two There is no one up here that doesn't tell the truth and is dishonest. I believe there was a reference to truck drivers going back of the building and driving out to Azusa Avenue. But there was no ingress or egress permitted on Azusa, only on Puente for trucks, Mrs. Van Dame: I have been in attendance at these meetings for the better part of ten years and I have yet to find a finer or more honorable group of folks as on this Council. I can remember Mr. Towner when he first came to California and had a Home Owners League which he started in old City Hall, RESOLUTION NO. 2249 ADOPTED Mayor Heath: The City Attorney presented. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF APEC`li- LECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ON THE 30TH DAY OF JAN- UARY, 1962 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB- MITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTER'S OF SAID CITY THE PROPOSITION OF WHE- THER ORDINANCE NO. 717 SHALL BE ADOPTED" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Towner, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Reath Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given.Noo 2249. REQUEST OF PROCTOR AND GAMBLE REPRESENTATIVE To distribute sample merchandise of two of their new products. This request denied in that it is in violation or ordinance of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 2250 ADOPTED They',,City Clerk presented: '•A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AP- PROVING A BOND TO GUARANTEE THE COST OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND THE TIME OF COMPLETION IN METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION NO, 135-1771" Jack No Nottingham -32- C. C. 11-27-61 Page Thirty Three RESOLUTION NO. 2250 - Continued LOCATION: Southeast corner of Citrus Street and Vanderhoof Drive - Final Map • Travelers Indemnity Company bond No. 975403 in the amount of $1,200.00 for street improvements. Mayor Heath: 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. 2250. RESOLUTION NO. 2251 ADOPTED The -City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING A BOND TO GUARANTEE THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND TIME OF COMPLETION" P. P. No. 277 - Thomas J. Hogan • LOCATION: Vincent and Glendora Avenues. Fidelity & Deposit Company - Maryland bond No. 5572465 in the amount of $10200.00 for street improvements. Mayor Heath: 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. 2251 CITY CLERK TEMPORARY USE PERMITS Tommie Lyon, Gerald H. Tripp, FOR CHRISTMAS TREE LOTS David Melden and Big Tree Ranch APPROVED at:locations at Southeast corner • of.Garvey and Citrus, the West Covina Plaza Park Lot, the Alpha - Beta Market Parking Lot and the Northeast corner of Sunset and Francisquito Avenues, respectively. Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Towner, and car- ried, that the request for temporary use permits for Xmas tree lots be approved, subject to review of City staff. -33- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Thirty Four FIRE DEPARTMENT Motion by Councilman Towner, AUTOMOBILE BIDS seconded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that authoriza- tion be given to call for bids • for the Fire Department auto- mobile to be opened on Decem- ber 21, 1961. TREASURER'S REPORT Motion by Councilman Barnes, OCTOBER, 1961 seconded by Councilman Towner, ACCEPTED and carried, that the Treasurer's Report for October, 1961 be ac- cepted for the record, REQUEST OF SALVATION ARMY Placement of Christmas kettles APPROVED with attendants in the Plaza and Eastland from 11/24/61 through 12/24/61. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and car- ried, that the request of the Salvation Army be approved, REVIEW OF PLANNING Nothing called up by Council, COMMISSION ACTION other than that already desig- nated to come before them. • POWER POLE Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes, and car- ried, that the Council accepts the recommendation of the staff in that the pole he permitted to be relocated as shown on the plan attached to the memorandum of November 24, 1961, until such time as the property to the south- east develops. CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO. 726 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO SALES AND USE TAX" Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder and car- ried that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Towner, 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. 726 -34- • C. C. 11-27-61 ORDINANCE NO. 727 ADOPTED Page Thirty Five The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNI- CIPAL CODE SO AS TO ESTABLISH A NEW AREA DISTRICT V" Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and car- ried that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived, Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Towner 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. 727. INTRODUCTION OF The City Attorney presented: ORDINANCE "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNI- CIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CER- TAIN PREMISES" Z.C. No. 190 - La Berge Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Towner, and car- ried that further reading of the body of the ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Adams, and car- ried that the ordinance be introduced and given its first reading. APPOINT NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER Mr. John W. Bartlett APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2252 ADOPTED Motion by Councilman Snyder, sec- onded by Councilman Barnes, and carried, that the appointment by the Mayor of Mr. John W. Bartlett as a member of the Planning Com- mission be approved, with Mr. Bart- lett to serve the unexpired term of Mr. Robert L. Jackson to June 30, 1962. The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPRO- VING A BOND TO GUARANTEE THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND TIME OF COM- PLETION" Precise Plan No. 274- Standard Oil Company • LOCATION: East side of Vincent Avenue, south of Garvey Avenue. Pacific Indemnity Company bond No. 318344 in the amount of $10700.00, for street improvements. Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the,:resolution. Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Barnes that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: -35- Co Co 11-27-61 Page Thirty Six RESOLUTION NO. 2252 - Continued Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None • Absent: None Said resolution was given No, 2252. RESOLUTION NO. 2253 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN IN- STRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RE- CORDATION THEREOF'• Dafford Do Cates-P.P. No. 278; Mitchell Ea Taylor and P.P. No. 274-Standard Oil Company LOCATION: East side of Vincent Avenue, south of Garvey Avenue Grant deed for street and highway purposes to be known as Walnut Creek Parkway. Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will . waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Barnes that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilman Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent None Said resolution was given No. 22.53 RESOLUTION NO. 2254 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROV- ING A BOND TO GUARANTEE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND TIME OF COM- PLETION" P.P. No. 278-Mitchell E. Taylor LOCATION: East side of Vincent Avenue, south of Garvey Avenue. Continental Casualty Company bond No. 1528080 in the amount of $8,500.00 for street improvements. 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. 2254. -36- 0 • C o C o 11-27-61 RESOLUTION NO. 2255 ADOPTED Page Thirty Seven The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEP- TING A BOND TO GUARANTEE THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND TIME OF COM- PLETION" Po Po No. 258 - Rudy Bowkero LOCATION: Northeast corner Ste Malo Street and Vine Avenue. Aetna Insurance Company bond in the amount of $.5,500a00 for street improvements. Mayor Heath: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Towner 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, 2255 PROJECT NO, C-157 LOCATION: Azusa Avenue and Cameron Traffic Signal Improvement Avenue APPROVED Request for authorization of addi- tional funds in the amount of $3,500.00 to install permanent traffic signals as feasible. Motion by Councilman Adams, seconded by Councilman Snyder that the City Council authorizes an additional expenditure in the amount of $3,500.00 to properly install permanent traffic signals at the in- tersection of Azusa and Cameron Avenues and that the City Engineer be authorized to prepare plans and specifications for this instal- lation and to negotiate an easement for the property on the south- west corner. Motion passed on roll callus follows: Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION NO. 2256 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONSENTING TO WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN ASSESSMENT DiSTRIC,T COM- PRISING TERRITORY PARTIALLY WITHIN WEST COVINA AND TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES OVER SAID TERRITORY BY THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK AND CON- SENTING TO THE ASSESSMENT OF SAID TERRITORY" Baldwin Park Sewer District 61-A-1 -37- • 0 Co Co 11-27-61 RESOLUTION NO. 2256 - Continued Mayor Heath: Page Thirty Eight Hearing no objections, I 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. 2256, ACCEPT SANITARY SEWER District A111-60-2 FACILITIES APPROVED LOCATION: Hillhaven Drive and other streets. Accept sewer facilities and authorize release -of Aetna Casualty and Surety Bond No. 33 S 48457 in the amount of $14,037.13, Bond will be released no sooner than 35 days from acceptance. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Adams, and car- ried, that sanitary sewer facilities in A111-60-2 be accepted, the bond released, but not sooner than 35 days from acceptance. RELEASE $1,000.00 Principal: Standard Plumbing Co. Excavation Bond APPROVED Industrial Indemnity Co. bond YS- 015974 in amount of $1,000.00. All obligations guaranteed by bond sat- isfactorily fulfilled. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Adams, and car- ried, that the street excavation bond in the amount of $1,000.00 be released to the Principal, Standard Plumbing Company, RELEASE,$1,000<00 Principal: AAA Construction Co. Excavation Bond APPROVED Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. Bond No. 33 S 47668. All obligations guaranteed by this bond satisfac- torily fulfilled. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and car- ried, that the street excavation bond in the amount of $1,000.00 be released to the Principaly'AAA Construction Company. DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Towner, sec- onded by Councilman Adams that Demands C-14485 throughFC-.14603 and B2263 through B-2267 be approved, Demand C-14457 ratifying is- suan-ce of the Demand C-144850 Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None -38- Co Co 11-27-6i­ Page Thirty Nine Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Barnes -that the Mayor shall be authorized to sign the resolution recommending that • there be some form of reapportionment providing more adegµate repre- sentation to Southern California,: Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Adams, Towner, Barnes, Snyder, Mayor Heath Noes: None Absent: None This resolution to be given No. 2257. There being no further business, motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Barnes that the meeting be adjourned at 12:45 A.M. to Monday; December 4, 1961 at 8 Po Me ATTEST: • 0 City Clerk APPROVED A C-4e-1 Mayor -39 - e