Loading...
02-10-1964 - Regular Meeting - MinutesI 11 i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA February 10, 1964 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor' Barnes at 7;40 Po Me in the West Covina City Hall, Councilman Towner led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was given by Dr. Robert Brizee of the West Covina Methodist Church. ROLL CALL Present; Mayor Barnes, Councilmen Towner, Jett, Heath, Snyder (from 8;20 PoMo) Others Present; Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk & Administrative Assistant Mr. Harry Ca Williams, City Attorney (from 7;45 P.M.) Mr, Thomas Jo Dosh, Public Services Director Mr, Harold Joseph, Planning Director (from 8;05 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 30, 1963 - Approved as presented as follows; Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the Minutes of December 30, 1963 be accepted as presented. January 6, 1964 - Mayor Barnes; CITY CLERK'S REPORTS PRECISE PLAN NO. 247 Accept Street. Improvements Church of Jesus Christ of Held Over. These Minutes will be held over for approval at the next meeting, LOCATION; Southeast corner of Fernwood and Mobeck, Latter Day Saints. Accept street improvements and APPROVED authorize release of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company bond No. 69118-12-213--61 in the amount of $7,250.00, subject to receipt of substitute bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for uncompleted sidewalk and driveway improvements. Staff recommends acceptance and release of substitute bond. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, to accept the street improvements in Precise Plan of Design No, 247 and authorize release of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company bond No. 69118-12-213-61 in the amount of $7,250.00, subject to receipt of substitute. bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for uncompleted sidewalk and driveway improvements. -1- C, Co 2/10/64 Page Two CITYCLERK°S REPORTS ® Con inued PROJECT S,Po6319®A LOCATION- Northeast corner of APPROVE PLANS 6 SPECIFICATIONS 'Sixnset and Service. STREET IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED Approve plans and specifications for Project S.P.6319®A,, Authorize City Engineer to call for informal bids. Estimate $900.00. Traffic Safety Contingency Fund. Staff recommends approval and authorization to City Engineer to call for informal bids. City Manager, Mr,, Aiassa- We received a memo regarding this matter''dated January 31, 1964.. directed to the City Manager and the City Cbun'cil.from R. E. Pontow, the City Engineer. I would like this spread in full in the Minutes - "Transmitted herewith are plans and specifications for widening'Service Avenue from Sunset Avenue easterly'approximately 200 feet. This project will provide two lanes of west bound traffic on Service Avenue as it approaches the traffic signal system now under con- struction. "It is the intent of this department to negotiate with the street contractor for Precise Plan No. 344, Mobile Oil Company, in order that this project may be constructed concurrently with their,work. The City Engineers estimate is approximately $900.00. Sufficient funds are available in the Traffic Safety Fund. "RECOMMENDATION- It is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for this project SP 6319®A and authorize the City Engineer to negotiate with the street contractor for the developer of Precise Plan No. 344 and issue a Purchase Order for this project." Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the plans and specifications in Project S.P. 6319-A be approved and authorize the City Engineer to call for informal bids. (Mr. Williams entered the chambers at 7-45 P.M.) PROJECT C.O. 6303 LOCATION- Del Norte and Orange - APPROVAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS wood Parks. PARK PAVILIONS APPROVED Approve plans and specifications for Project C.O. 63'03,, Authorize City Engineer to call for bids. Estimate m $13,200.00. Capital Outlay Fund. Staff recommends approval and authorization to City Engineer to call fop bids. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to approve the plans and specifications in Project'C.0.6303 and authorize the City Engineer to call for bids. -2- Co C, 2/10/64 MAYORS REPORTS DINNER FOR ASSEMBLYMAN SOTO Mayor Barnes - Page Three Is anyone on the Council going to Assemblyman Soto's dinner tomorrow evening? Councilman Towner- This dinner. -as I understand it, is just one of these testimonial dinners which is, in fact, a fund®raising project for his campaign, I don't feel that we should participate as a City Council, As individuals, any Councilman might want to contribute to his campaign. WATER MEETING Mayor Barnes - City Manager, Mro Aiassa- There will be a water meeting tomorrow evening at the Alhambra City Hall at 7-30, The agenda has been provided. REESE BILL (RAPID TRANSIT) Mayor Barnes- The committee that I appointed Councilmen,Heath and Snyder to attend'I 'think has been resolved as far as this committee is concerned which had to do with the Reese Bill on rapid transit, I attended the meeting -on the 6th with ;the Committee° We made a decision with some nine points added to the bill. I will have copies distributed to the Council. We felt a..60% majority of the vote of the people would be sufficiento Councilman Henry objected to going any lower than- 60% of the vote of the people and I feel we all con- curred with him, Also -changing the,R.eese Bill a little bite it was the thinking that one change would-be to,make it three people_ appointed by the Los`Angeles Board of Supervisors, two by the City of Los 'Angeles and four by the -League of California.Cities making..,a.com® mission of nine, The previous bill that, .passed the.Board.of 'Supervisors was five from the Board of Supervisors, one from the cities and one from the City of Los Angeles, I would like to say that Harry Williams made a marvelous presentation of the points of interest as far as the cities were concerned: and I would like Mr. Williams to elaborate on some of these points at this time. City Attorney, Mr, Williams- As.you know. gentlemen, there are two bills proposed onto be proposed before the Legislature withrespectto transit, One would be the Reese Bill and the other -the -Carroll Bill which .would leave MTA as it is but make amendments to the act, So that the choice of the cities is not necessarily.one of an -ideal solution but a choice between those things which are pending.now,which arethe Reese Bill.'the amended.MTA, opposing everything, or doing nothing, -3- Ca Ca 2/10/64 'REESE BILL (RAPID TRANSIT) m Continued Page Four If you start last, if you do nothing, the Legislature will probably enact something without the benefit of any guidance from the cities so we can't complain of what we'get if we do nothing. If we oppose everything we may succeed. The happiest result would be that we do succeed. If we succeed in opposing everything we keep what we have now which is an ox-cart kind of a transportation system. If we agree with the vast majority of the people who have looked into this that a rapid transit system is an asset to a metropolitan area the practical result is that we support either the Reese Bill or the MTA-amendment. Neither one is perfect. Both propose to do some things that at first seem to infring upon a strictly home rule concept but a strictly home rule concept always must give way to some degree when you talk about a problem that transends jurisdictional lines of cities. The happiest result that cities have achieved and have been fairly satisfied with is a voice in the government of these things if they must go beyond the city lines. Transit apparently must go beyond city lines in several respects. If you're going to have one throughout the metropolitan area it can't be vetoed by an El Monte. It must have the ability to go through. You can't go from Los Angeles to Long Beach if Compton can stop it. It must have a power of eminent domain which it doesn't have now. It must have apparently in order to finance an adequate system the power to issue bonds and the power to levy taxes, we are position that the cities have taken is rather simple. If e asked to surrender these rights to a metropolitan -wide system, we want some compensating advantages. If we are to surrender the rights to go through our cities we want the district governed by people appointed by the city. If we are surrendering the right to levy taxes and issue bonds, we want to sit on the governing board that does this. This is the price. The Reese Bill answers this better than the other bill does. The present draft of: the Reese Bill gives cities a majority vote but he is willing to increase it. The present draft of the Reese Bill proposes four members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, two by the City of Los Angeles, and three by the City Selection Committee of the cities of this County other than Los Angeles, which would give the cities a five to four vote It has been agreed to change this to four from the City Selection Committee, two from Los Angeles, and three from the Board. This gives a six to three vote in favor"of the cities and this isn't highly significant. It gives all of'the vote to the elected representatives of the people of Los Angeles County. As to.the otherthings that are different between the Reese Bill and the MTA Bill, Senator Reese, as you know, has consistently and from'the beginning consulted with the cities, has asked for representation from the Los Angeles Division of the League, has written into the bill various protections for the cities, and while he advances the same general things ®® the right to condemn, the right to issue bonds,'the right to levy taxes -- in each instance there is a protection granted to the cities which is not written into the MTA Billo -4- I j U i C, C, 2/10/64 REESE BILL (RAPID TRANSIT) - Continued } R Page Five MTA, you will remember, first advanced the proposition in the Legislature being given the power to levy taxes and issue bonds without a vote'of the people,, Senator Reese°s bill provides that even if the bill passes it is not effective until the people have voted it in in this area,, The Senator has done something else. He has put in this bill a permissive provision that if certain areas such as a'corridor running from, says Burbank to Long Beach,. just to pick one, were provided with a higher level of rapid transit, whether it is monorail, a subway, or what it is, the bill provides that the area benefit -- and this need not necessarily be the area as narrow as the track of rails -- but the area adjacent may be assessed just as we assess for a civic improvement to pay the difference in the level of transportation they get because the cities generally, I think, have expressed a fear that if they grant the power of taxation what will happen is, and this is based largely on MTA experience, that they will get the tax all right but they will get the same buss transportation they have now with the tax or else they have the fear that somewhere else in the County they may get a superior level of transportation but we wouldn't but we pay the tax,, Senator Reese, recognizing this., has written a provision into his bill, He has a provision in this bill which may not be entirely satisfactory that before going through a city there has to be a kind of a meeting, proposed agreements rather similar to the freeway -type of agreement with the State Division of Highways,, It is true that the way the bill now stands the final decision rests with the transit district and not with the city but he has addressed himself to the problem,, MTA has not addressed itself to the problem,, MTA has not been cooperative with cities; it has been the contrary. Where it did consult, just once it consulted with your Transportation Committee,, The Committee suggested that the five County, one Los Angeles and one all other city ratio is wrong, that the jurisdictions that will provide MTA with police service, with traffic control, with street maintenance, with fire protection, will certainly be disproportionate to five County and two city. It would probably be closer to the opposite, They made no change whatever as a result of conversation with the League of Cities Committee, The Senator has made changes in his bill,, In other words, there has been cooperation, The other thing that strikes the Committee is this° Whether it is right or wrong you can.judge; that regardless of fault without blaming anybody, there are good people on MTA,, They have established a history of lack of cooperation and lack of success and the people are not likely to vote a six -hundred -million -dollar bond issue to the MTA as long as that name is attached to it for these reasons, The League Committee has favored the Reese Bill over an amendment to MTA,,. Councilman Heath: Does this concede the fact that the units should not be built by private enterprise? City Attorney, Mr,, Williams: It do.esn°t address itself to that. It.does not address, itself to the type of system, whether it be monorail, duorail, aircraft, or what,, Mayor Barnes: Supervisor Bonelli is in full accord with the Rees:e Bill,, -5- I Cc Cc 2/10/64 REESE BILL (RAPID TRANSIT) ® Continued Page Six City Attorney, Mr. Williams- I think at least two or three other members of the Board of Supervisors, other than Mr. Bonelli, have stated that if the MTA amendment was passed they would reappoint the same members that are now governing MTA. The Reese Bill said the County appointees must be members of the Board of Supervisors; that the City,appointees must be elected officers of the cities so that the governing body would be the people elected by the people, by the electorate for the local government of their various jurisdictions whereas the MTA Bill does not do this. Councilman Jett., SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS I think this is the only chance you have to ever get anything done. PROJECT SS-21 LOCATION- At Vincent and Glendora. SANITARY SEWERS Informal bids received in office of City Engineer, February 6, 19649 at 10200 A.M. The bids received are as follows- MAX MILOSEVICH $ 1,675.05 Rc Ec DOWNER 1,830.50 BEECHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 29120.00 ARISTO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2,171.50 Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Jett, that the' bid for Project SS-219 Sanitary Sewer, be awarded to Milosevich on the basis of his low bid in the amount of $1,675.05, and that the additional amount of $375.05 be appropriated from the General Fund. Motion passed on roll call as follows., Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Jett, Heath, Mayor Barnes Noes- None Absent: Councilman Snyder HEARINGS RESOLUTION OF INTENTION N0, 2835 This date set for hearing of PROTEST HEARING protests or objections from 1964 WEED AND RUBBISH property owners and other ABATEMENT PROGRAM interested parties to Resolution of Intention No. 2835 adopted January 13, 1964. Mayor Barnes- Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavits of publishing and posting? City Clerk, Mr,, Flotten- Yes. so I i Co C, 2/10/64 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ® Continued e., Page Seven (Mro Joseph entered the chambers at 8:05 P,M,) Motion by.Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that the affidavits be received and placed on file, Mayor Barnes: Mr, City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections against performing of this proposed work? Mr, City Clerk, Mr, Flotten: No protests. Mayor Barnes: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to make a protest? Mr, Anthony Leone I have a storm drain on my 2739 East Cortez Street property which I knew was to be West Covina there when I bought the property. It is seven feet wide, three feet deep, The people down below have fenced off their property so that the rubbish will pile up against it, the water backs up, the ditch gets full of rubbish and I have to haul it away in my truck, We have been told we have to go to court to get them to open up that ditch but in our deeds it said that ditch must stay there, The thing that gripes me is I'm paying more taxes than my neighbors, They have bigger property than I have, they have a swimming pool, a stable, and I am bare, City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: I would like to investigate this. We have nothing to do with the appraising of the property, Mr, Anthony Leone: At the last rain the water backed up in Mr, Armstrong's stable, He came here to make a protest but was told we would have to get a lawyer, Mayor Barnes: Can this fence be put across the wash to back water up in this man°s property? City Attorney, Mr, Williams: Mr, Dosh has discussed this problem with me and we propose to present for you consideration later this evening an ordinance which you may elect to pass which would provide that a person may not obstruct a natural water course and must keep it free of any debris that would hinder the flow, This ordinance has been designed to answer the very problem that Mr. Leone presents, If it passes and when it becomes effective it would then be possible with very little effort to file a criminal complaint, At least this would provide a vehicle to answer this, Mr, Anthony Leone: Anything is agreeable to me, Commissioner Towner.- If,I understand your position, you are not protesting the weed abatement program, the rubbish abatement program, What you have is a special problem, You realize we have to go through with the rubbish abatement program? -7- I C, C, 2/10/64 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM m Continued eav�t�eeemma Mr, Anthony Leone.- Right. Page Eight Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that the City Manager be directed to investigate the complaint of Mr, Anthony Leone, Mr, Anthony Leone: City Manager, Mr, Aiassa.- Will you look into this tax situation also? I'll check our rolls and be in touch with you, Mr, Armstrong.- I am the man who has all the water to contend with and I am being swamped out, I eventually accumulate all this rubbish, On the back end of my lot there is approximately a good truckload of rubbish back there, None of this belongs to me, When this ordinance is passed and it goes into effectQ am I to pay for the removal of this rubbish that does not belong to me that was forced upon me? It doesn't look right that I should have to pay for the removal of this rubbish, (Councilman Snyder entered the chambers at 8.-20 P,M,) Councilman Jett: We just instructed the City Manager to investigate Mr. Leone's problem and I think this will take in yourproblem, too, We will get a staff report on this and we will see what we can do here, Motion.by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that the public hearing be closed, Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to order the weed abatement removal of rubbish on the properties indicated in the 1964 Weed and Rubbish Abatement Program, ZONE CHANGE NO, 281 LOCATION.- 1943 8 2001 W, Garvey, David Kreedman APPROVED Request to reclassify from Zone and VARIANCE NO, 476 R-A, R-1 and R®3 to Zone R®4 David Kreedman approved by Planning Commission Resolution No, 1509, (Hearing APPROVED before City Council held over and PRECISE PLAN N0, 392 from January 13 to February 10,) Request to modify required setbacks, David Kreedman APPROVED height and ground.coverage require - ments in Zone R®4 approved by No, 1515. (Hearing before City Planning Commission Resolution Council held over from January 27 to February 10, 1964,) Request for approval of precise plan for multiple family development in Zone R®4 Approved by Planning Commission Resolution No, 1524, (Called up by Council on January 13,) City Clerk, Mr, Flotten> (Read Planning Commission Resolution have a memo to the City Council Nos,.1509, 1515 and 1524,) We from the Planning Commission with respect to an additional condition of the variance.. (Read memo W:0 C, C, 2/10/64 Page Nine ZONE CHANGE NO, 2819 ET AL, (KREEDMAN) - Continued directed to the City Manager from the Planning Commission regarding the elimination of two parking stalls which would slightly reduce the required number of parking stalls for the project; that it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this be permitted within the Variance No, 476,) Mayor Barnes-. IN FAVOR This is the time and place for the public hearing, Mr, Francis J, Garvey I am an attorney representing 281 East Workman Avenue the applicant, There is one Covina change, On the application, Mr, Kreedman signed as applicant and Mary Winthrop signed as owner, Since the application has been filed Mr, Kreedman.and Mr, Sindell have acquired title of the property and the escrow is about to be closed, (Stepped to map and explained the area surrounding proposed zone change,) This is the assembly of four parcels of land to give access to these landlocked parcels to Garvey Avenue, The justification for the change of zone is that we have within this area a present multi purpose use, we have had expressions from the City Council in the discussion of other cases that perhaps the proper place for the new R®4 would.be down near the commercial development of the Plaza, We are well within the influence of that. Regarding the variances, I believe that the question of everything has been settled by the precise plan, The present development as you see it before you requires only a variance along the Checker Storage facility as a height variation. The ground coverage has been corrected and the distances to the east and the south and the north in general terms as to direction have been met and are now qualifying in terms of code requirements, The other requirement of the variance which was expressed in a note that came up from the Planning Commission involves the fact that owing to the necessity of meeting ground coverage requirements and eliminating the variance on the other side and making that conform we came into a situation back to the rear of the property on the precise plan where the alley behind Garvey empties into the property; that the Fire Department needed a larger turning radius than would be provided if these two parking stalls were in here, By moving the building back this would not have been necessary but in terms of ground coverage and everything else, we have this and this is only to accomodate the Fire Department or other vehicles of a similar large character. Your code is tied to parking requirements, The Planning Commission in considering the overall plan felt that since everything else had been provided that the granting of a variance to build according to the precise plan without respect to the fact that two parking stalls would be missing would be fair and equitable under the circumstances, To this extent, the original memorandum or resolution of the Planning Commission has been amended by its subsequent action after technically the variance came up to you for approval, ME 11 I i C, Ca 2/10/64 ZONE CHANGE NO, 2812 ET AL, (KREEDMAN) Continued built, Funds have been committed, with Checker refusing to give the question of an alley there, Page Ten The building is ready to be I believe the alley is eliminated necessary land so we have no There being no further public testimony, the hearing was closed, Councilman Towner - Planning Director, Mr, Joseph2 Does Study No, 5 provide a ground coverage of 40% or less? Yes,, it does. It is 39,9, Councilman Heath- Concerning the variance on height, I believe that prior to this precise plan the Planning Commission took exception to that variance on height, Planning Director, Mr, Joseph2 The only point of the variance that was before them that they objected to was the ground coverage, They initially went for the height, Councilman Jett; In R®4 aren't five stories permissible? Planning Director, Mr Joseph- Yes but you should be a little further away from your property line, In this instance the Commission felt that since the property line abutted the Checker Transfer it was reasonable to come closer to the adjacent property in this area, They are only proposing to build two stories right now,, The R®1 properties still hay.e a. separation, You have carports and the height would be separated from the R®1, Mayor Barnes: How far are you from the nearest R®1 with this two story? Planning Director, Mr, Joseph- This is 45 1/2 feet to the property line, In the ordinance you can build two stories 25 feet away, At the setback line you can be up 18 feet, Councilman Jett- I think our major question before was the circulation for fire equipment through the alley, City Manager, Mr, Aiassa- The Engineer's recommendation was not accepted by the Planning Commission, Public Services Director, Mr, Dosh- The Fire Department was satisfied as long as we eliminated certain parking stalls which has been done, Originally we proposed to acquire five feet from Mr. Kelly and utilize this and would allow better circulation from the public alley. We couldn't accomplish this with this precise plan because this property owner didn't want to give up the five feet, He wanted to retain a separate piece of property, These two properties will be separate from one another. I think our proposal would give better traffic circulation, The alley has almost no use right now, It wasn't improved very much in the first place, ®100 I CC Ca 2/10/64 Page Eleven ZONE CHANGE NO,, 2812ET AL,, MEEDMAN) Continued Mayor Barnes- Would you recognize it as an alley for fire protection? Public Services Directors Mro Dosh- Councilman Snyder - Public Services Director, Mr,, Dosh- Councilman Snyder: City Manager, Mr,, Aiassa- As long as it is unobstructed, yes It is a public alley 20 feet wide,, What is the density of this precise plan'? It is quite a bit under the density allowed in Rao; it is about 27 to the acre,, Did Victor Gruen have a chance to review this precise plan? We sent the precise plan over to him,, Councilman Snyder- There probably isn't much we can do about that. I don't mean to cause any difficulty here but it seems to me this is where the problem of multiple and how much multiple comes in,, I realize this borders commercial by use on one side and the freeway on another and probably multiple on the other, but it does border R-1 on the rear, What criteria did the Planning Commission use to arrive at a recommendation of R®4 instead of R-3? Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph- I think there were two basic considerations, as I recall,, It was in the influential area of the high density shown on Cameron Avenue,, They felt that this vicinity even though it went to the other side of Cameron could be construed as being part of the high density area,, Secondly, I think the Commission was concerned with the proper development of the property; in other words, getting something worthwhile on here,, They recognized the fact the properties were joining together, There was a development problem; there wasn't too much there now. Actually, the density between the Rm3 and the Rm4 is very close,, The distances between buildings stays the same; parking stays the same; they can't go any higher because of the parking requirements,, Generally speaking, I would say that the development is fairly comparable, maybe two more units to the acre, to.a R®3,, It is not that much different on a piece of property that is this small,, You have greater ground coverage; you have 39,,9 instead of 35,, Councilman Snyder: We are, in effect, adding this much more R-4 in excess of what we need and Rm3 would have fit just as well and certainly would have been more compatable with the R®1 to the rear,, I don't think it's a good point but I have some reluctance to give R-4 instead of R®3,, Mayor Barnes- We have asked for a study on the R-3 and R®4, whether or not we are getting too far ahead,, Didn't we say anything zoned Rm4 that the buildings would have to be of Class A type in the ordinance? City Attorney, Mr, Williams- I don't recall anything about Class A buildings, I i Cc Cc 2/10/64 ZONE CHANGE NO, 281s ET AL, (KREEDMAN) - Continued Page Twelve Councilman Heath: It would be covered by'the Building Code, They are not building to the maximum limits of R®4; they are maybe two, four units over in the entire parcel of land; they are staying at two stories; they are building way under the minimum of the R-4o I can't see your reasoning, Dr, Snyder, Councilman Snyder: Rm4, They can't build Rm4 here shape of the property. If we are going to give Rm4, it should be where they can build because of several limitations; the Mr, Francis J, Garvey: You're getting into new types of records that were not brought up and I am going to have an opportunity to rebut some of these things. Council discussion can only go into matters of the record or I have an opportunity to rebut them, Councilman Snyder: I don't believe that is true. It is certainly a discussion of the criteria of why R-4 was given and it is a valid discussion, it seems to me, Councilman Towner: Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: What is the allowable density in the new R-3 ordinance? 25 to the net acre, Councilman Towner: On those R-1 properties in back of this, they are quite deep lots, Where are the existing residences on them? Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: I think the closest residence is 50 feet away from the property line, Councilman Jett: It appears the Planning Commission and the owners have come up with a. pretty good solution to a problem piece of property, Councilman Snyder: I don°t think under the concept of the Rm4 ordinance that they have justified R-4 use, I can see R-3 here but I could see Rm4 if this was a larger piece of property,, Councilman Jett: In this case I think we have something that is in substantial conformance with the General Plan and it appears to me that the purchaser of the property here has done an unusually good job of putting together some difficult problem pieces and making it useful and I think the actual end result is in substance a R-3 type of zoning because of the restrictions of the precise plan. It appears to me to be that the overall picture is one we can approve as the Planning Commission did, Councilman Towner: It seems to me the concern of Dr, Snyder is a very valid one as to the amount of multiple density zoning we are to allow in the City, Yet, I agree with Councilman Jett°s statement, -12- I i C, C, 2/10/64 Page Thirteen ZONE CHANGE N0, 281, ET AL, (KREEDMAN) _ Continued Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that Zone Change No, 281 be approved, (Councilman Snyder and Mayor Barnes voted "No".) Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, that Variance No, 476 be approved subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and in conformance with the precise plan shown as Study No, 5; further that the height and parking requirements be in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Councilman Towner: This is different than the initial variance request, Apparently, they have,met some of the problems that were raised at the time of the hearing on the variance when they came in with their precise plan, Study No, 5, In order to approve Study No, 5 which seems to satisfactorily answer all of the problems you have to have variances, The variances we have to have are apparently on the parking which would eliminate two parking stalls and the other on the height or the setback or combination of the two and the Planning Commission justification on the height was that it was next to commercial anyway, As far as I can tell, that is all they need to conform the variance and the precise plan. Action on Councilman Heath's motion: Motion carried, Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that Precise Plan of Design No, 392 be approved subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commision which are all with respect to Study No, 5, VARIANCE NO, 479 LOCATION: Sunset between Durness Empire Financial Corporation and Merced, DENIED Request for reduction of the R-2 provisions of the Municipal Code for a multiple housing complex denied by Planning Commission Resolution No, 1527, Appealed by applicant on January 20, 1964, City Clerk, Mr, Flottens (Read Planning Commission Resolution No, 15270 The notice of this public hearing appeared in the West Covina Tribune on January 30, There were 28 notices mailed`to property owners in the area, Mayor Barnes: IN FAVOR This is the time and place for the public hearing, Mr, Garrett Smith I am the architect for the 2043 West Cliff proposed development, We .are Newport Beach asking for a variance from the new Rm2 ordinance in two specific areas; one in denisty and one in distance between buildings. In density, we are 4,7 units per acre over your new R®2. In distance between buildings we have four locations where we have buildings 40 feet from one another with windows facing one another and your new ordinance is'50 feet separation between buildings with -13® Co Cc 2/10/64 VARIANCE NO, 479 m Continued Page Fourteen windows facing 'one another, This plan has a coverage of 19,9% of the property and with a little less than 30% coverage including accessory buildings, On the two streets we fronts only 25% of our frontage has buildings up to the setbacks which is 35 feet, The remaining 75% our setback is well over 100 feet, Our landscaped green areas on both streets are 100 by 200 feet in area, We face on a major street which is engineered for heavy tr4ffic, This is the main access for our project, We meet the requirements of your Fire Department and your Police Department, The architectural development here will be a stylized type of architecture, We are creating a recreational area within the site. We are in excess of the require- ments for parking required in your. Rm2, Alsos under R-2 we are allowed to be within 25 feet of R®1 with two story buildings. We are 68 feet away from the R®1 property with our two-story buildings. We are not going to the minimum on every phase possible. We want to have an attractive project here because we want to make money on it and we can't do it if it isn't attractive. This project would meet all of the -requirements of your old R®2 zoning which was -in effect when we first initiated our thoughts of developing this property. The only items we do not comply with in the present Rm2 are the density and the separation between buildings, IN OPPOSITION Mr, Louis Olivo I think primarily this hearing 1439 West Durness Street was a request for a variance, West Covina It had nothing to do with beautification and things like that, It primarily deals with density which we object to, This area was approved for the new R®2, We accepted this although we didn't like it and we are willing to live with it, Now they want to increase the density from the allowable 10 units per acre to 14,5 as he mentioned which in effect is a Rm3 zoning, In connection with this protests some of the residents on Durness Street and members of the Edgewood Home Owners Association circulated a petition and I would like to present it at this time, (Presented petition to Council,) This petition was circulated in protest to the request for the variance, Those signatures were obtained in less than a week and by part-time effort. I can count the people who did not object to the project on one hand, The entire area is 100% against this particular variance. ,It isn't a question of rezoning from R®A to R®2 but by this request for variance the Empire Financial Corporation is attempting to obtain the identical results they wanted and would have received if the property had been given R®3s a density of 14,5 units per acre instead of the maximum of 10 in the R-2 which was voted on and passed by the Council, We hope you will vote against the variance requested, Councilman Heath: I think it would help everybody concerned if the Planning Director would straighten out the density of Rm2 and Rm3 in units per acre, Planning Directors Mr, Joseph: Rm2 now permits 10 units to the net acre and R®3 permits 25 units to the net acre, -14- Co Ca 2/10/64 VARIANCE NO, 479 - Continued. Page Fifteen Mr,, Phil Eberbrand 1415 Durness I am adjacent to this property. This land was originally recom- West Covina mended for R-1,, We were told when we purchased our homes on Durness that this would be R-10 With this development there will be an invasion of privacy,, Every home on Durness has two bedrooms and a rear living room with a picture window fading this project,, You will increase the noises traffic and dirt in the neighborhood, This plan indicates an alley or driveway going from Trojan to Sunset,, This will provide a nice shortcut for the high school children and a place to speed through,, The supply of apartments far exceed the demand of tenants in this area,, We were led to believe that this parcel would be zoned R-1,, Since it is not R-1 I think it should be the nearest zoning to it,, sideration We should be given some con- as we are the ones who must live with this neighborhood detriment,, Mr, Herman Hasselbeck I collected some 60 signatures 1421 Durness Street and among those 60 people there West Covina were only two who did not want to sign that petition,, Everyone of those sixty,- people still believe in majority opinion and rule,, They are very much against any further increase in density; against any further chance of having a little more drag races on their street; more traffic and so forth,, I live directly adjacent to that property and I have pointed out before as to why I object to this.plan,, It is basically a matter of privacy,, I would say it is only fair that the opposition would have to meet us half -way. This is a R-2 zone and we want a precise plan adjusted to the R-2 zone 100% and not count on a variance and stalling and dragging, this thing out. I think tonight a definite decision should be made as to what will happen here and they should be instructed if they are going to accept the Rm2 they should come up with a plan to meet the R-2. restrictions to. protect our interests. as being neighbors and living in the same area,, This should be one story garden type apartments which would blend into the neighborhood. They could have two-story buildings. about 100, 120 feet away from us,, There should be a markation lines fence, shrubbery, to prevent a through road so the hotrod traffic doesn't go through,, They had their chance to come up with the right thing and I think Mr,, Joseph can give them exact instructions as to how to meet the requirements. We are stuck with R-2; we have to live with it,, I think we have made our compromise; let them make a compromise,, Mrs,, Marjorie Gaines 914 West Barbara West Covina Wes as a group, would like to go on proposed variance to this property of the municipal code requirements requirements,,) In our opinion, the I am here tonight to represent the West Covina Home Owners Association as a substitute for Chuck Dowding, the chairman,, record as objecting to any on the grounds it meets none for a variance,, (Read said original R-2 zoning was. _15- C, C, 2/10/64 VARIANCE NO, 479 m Continued incorrect and no sufficient reason was ever zone change on this property,, With all of would like to go on record as feeling that completely uncalled for and definitely not visions of the'codeo REBUTTAL Page Sixteen given to necessitate a these facts in mind, we this variance would be in accord with the pro - Mr, Garrett Smith.- The property does adjoin the professional property to the north, This is the reason this was given multiple zoning and justly so, As to the invasion of privacy, I covered that previously regarding the distance of the two-story buildings away from the R®1, namely 68 feet, As far as adding to traffic problems, apartments don't lend themselves to teenage type families, Property with this type of density will contribute less pupils to school per acre than a Rml property, This is an undisputed fact. There are a lot of things imposed on a multiple development that are not imposed on R®1. There are limitations put on us which we are happy to live with and in some instances we have even exceeded the requirements of the City. We have been in the process of planning this project for over six months which was prior to your present zoning density requirement. I doubt if my clients can develop this project with the density requirement of 10 per acre,, They have indicated to me that this is a type of development which they can develop with the type of development they want in here and do a first-class job without having to reduce the qualify of the structure because of.the increased cost per unit that would be imposed upon us if the density were 10 instead of what we are asking for, There being no further public testimony, the hearing was closed, Councilman Towner.- The -property is presently zoned R®2, I gather there is no precise plan, is that right? Planning Director, Mr, Joseph.- The zone change to R®3 and a precise plan were submitted to the Planning Commission and they were both denied, Both were appealed to the City Council, The Council held the zoning and sent the precise plan back to the Planning Commission.for a report, The Planning Commission reported back that this is a nice precise plan on property properly zoned and gave you a series of conditions on the precise plan but did not feel the plan should be imposed on this property, At that point, you granted Rm2ezoning on the property rather than R®3, you referred the precise plan back to the Planning Commission with instructions for the applicant to amend the precise plan to come up with a R-2 precise plan and the plan was to be reported back to the City Council, Rather than doing this, the applicant chose to file for a variance on this precise plan and they presented it to the City Planning Commission, The Planning Commission then rejected this variance and the applicant now has this precise plan back before you with conditions attached to it with the recommendation or the denial on the variance for this precise plan for the Rm2 proposal, You do have the precise plan which was referred back to the Planning Commission still before you, ®16m C. Ca 2/10/64 VARIANCE NO,, 479 m Continued Page Seventeen Councilman Towner: I note the precise plan is not the agenda still pending as a result on and I assume it is of the variance request,, I'have no doubt in my mind about the proper action here,,. It appears to me that the applicants here have made a request for a variance but they have not met the standards set up by the code. Instead they have merely shown what they are asking as a special privilege from the ordinance as it exists, I don't see any justification for it,, Councilman Heath-, At what date was this sent back to the Planning Commission and asked for further study the last time? I recall it was sent back for restudy and there was discussion about applying for a variance at the Council level, Was this sent back with strict instructions that the applicant was to revise their plan to meet the R®2 or -was it sent back with the instructions or indications that it be'sent back to be revised to -the R-2 requirements or a variance applied for? It was my understanding that it could be handled in either way, City Manager, Mr,, Aiassa-, This is from the Minutes of December 9: ",,,,request to reclassify zone R®A to zone R®3 denied by Planning Commission, appealed by applicant on September 13, Hearing set for October 14 and held over to October 28 and held over to this date for decision,, Precise plan hearing continued and referred back to the Planning Commission for report," That is the first time it was referred back, Councilman Towner-, I think it was referred back to the Planning Commission on January 13, City Manager, Mr,, Aiassa-, That is when you passed the zoning, Councilman Heath-, Would the City Clerk read the third paragraph of the - petition presented to us in light of the fact we have established that the density of R®2 and Rm3 is 10 and 259 respectifully, Councilman 'owner-, Could I ask that the entire petition be read? City Clerk, Mr, Flotten-, "Wes the undersigned home owners of the City of West Covina, oppose the application for the Variance No, 479 by the Empire Financial Corporation to permit the increase in density from'a maximum of 10 units per acre to some 14,,5 units per acre for the following reasons-, "A, We believe the property should be developed Rml single family dwellings, The City Planning Y Staff and Commission endorsed this point of view in their original determination of the zoning on this property this past summer, "B, The City Council over- ruled the recommendation of the residents, the Planning Staff and Planning Commission and zoned the property R®2 in October, 1963, We did not feel that the R-2 use with 10 units maximum per acre was bad enough to initiate a referendum at that time, m17® Ca Ca 2/10/64 VARIANCE N06 479 - Continued Page Eighteen "C. By approving this variance the City Council would, in effect, be nullifying the R-2 determination And granting a R-3 zoning which was denied in October, 1963 after the - Council had made what we hoped was a firm determination in this matter." Councilman Snyder- I think where a:great deal of misunderstanding or misconception of what is available is due to the fact that we were in the process of adopting the new ordinances at the same time this application was being processed. I think we would be doing an injustice to the new ordinance if we did grant this variance. I think we have to give it An opportunity to work. this Rm2 was we did feel it did One of the reasons for zoning justify a little more density but that it should still fit in with the R®1 and the new R-2 ordinance is supposed tog in effects look like Rml except be a little more dense. They have not justified the need for a variance. I don't think we can start varying from the Rm2 ordinance right now or we have, in effect, dsstroyed it right off the bat. We can't very well grant this. Councilman Jett- When this first came before the City Council I requested that I be withdrawn from the Council for the reason that I was the broker on this piece of property. When I ran for the City Council and made the announcement that I was semi -retiring' from the real estate business and in the two years that I have been on the Council I have had one piece of property that a friend of mine submitted to me and I sold it to these people. Since this time, I have been accused in the newspapers by individuals and various and sundry people of reneging on my promise to the people that I was retiring from the real estate business. It seems to be a realtor is a terrible profession. I am very.proud.that I carry the designation of reaitor. It is a name that you have to earn and, it is very jealously governed by those members who watch to see the ethics are maintained and kept very high. I want the record to show that I am no longer the broker in this piece of property. I have no interest in it whatsoever financially or otherwise as a real estate broker or anything else. I am taking my prerogative now of being able to speak on this piece of .property and vote upon it. I have helped develop this City and I am very proud of the part I have played in developing this' City. I can recall not very many years ago when we came in for A subdivision we had this room packed with orange growers objecting to residences coming into the orange grove country. You cant.stop progress. I know when we first started putting in stores around various places we had.opposition to those stores. When you have people you have to,provide the necessities of life eventually for those people if you are going to develop a city. We had to have schools and parks and we had opposition to these things. We came in with apartment houses and we had opposition to them. I have heard many many times "We have too many apartment houses". There is no way we.can tell when we have too many of any one thing. We Are talking about a city, of 10090°00 people. The General Plan said that in the future development of West Covina will be apartment houses. C, Ca 2/10/64 Page Nineteen VARIANCE NO, 479 ® Continued These developers have come up with a precise plan that, in my opinion, has done a tremendous job as far as open space. I think as far as justification for a variance it has been met in this case just as much as the variance that the Planning Commission approved on the north side of the freeway. The one just approved a few minutes ago was no more justified than the variance being considered here. In granting a variance for anything we must consider whether or not it is good for the City. I think these people have come up with something that I could be proud of in future years and say I had a part in approving it. I think we would be remiss in the fact that they started their request for this approval prior to the time that we had changed the R-2 zoning which dropped it from 15 units to 10 units. I think they had every reason to think that this was what they were asking for up until the time we changed it. The City Councils instead of granting the Rm3 which was requested originally, did grant the R®2. I think the Rm2 as it now exists was created for problem properties as a floating zone and was not intended, for areas of this type because I think the Council feels that in these areas a higher density would be more appropriate. I, for one, think this is a good treatment for this piece of property and would certainly be in favor of it. Councilman Heath: I feel in favor of the variance for this reason: Just recently our Planning Commission and Planning Department revised our residential ordinances, R®1, R-2 and R®3 and simplified them and tried to stream- line them. They came up with a recommendation of R-1 as approximately five units per acre; R-2 is 10 and R-3 is 20. We passed the R-2 prior to the passing of the R®3. We passed the Rm2 thinking we wouldn't change the R®3. After we passed the Rm2 and we got to the R®3 we figured 20 was too low and we went to 25. I think if we upped the Rm3 from 20 to 25 we should up the R®2 to make it a somewhat medium range. The R®2 used to be 15. I don't know of anybody who was hurt by this. The Towne House Development on Glendora is developed with the same density and I think it is a good plan. They still only have 30% coverage of the land here. They have more parking spaces than required. I don't think you're putting a terrifically big change on this property over the proposed 10 units per acre. I can't see the reason for not granting this variance unless just to be obstinate because it looks like a good development. I don't see where it creates too dense a problem. Councilman Snyder. I don't think the Council had any opinions that this should be R®3. I think the question was should it be R-2 or Rml and this is where the difference lies. In respect to the statement do we have too many apartments, I don't think the criteria of how many apartments you have ,is whether people think you have too many or whether you are renting all of them but the fact is whether you can service the density you are putting in your city. I personally don't think we have reached a point in density of apartments where we are going to have a difficult time servicing them. I think we are way behind and the density is going to have to wait until these matters catch up. This is our responsibility and when we add density on density without adding these other things we are failing in our responsibility. I again say we cannot grant this variance without, in effect, destroying the R-2 ordinance which we have passed. It was passed to give us a little more increased density but still look like Rml. ®19® Ca Ca 2/10/64 VARIANCE NO, 479 m Continued Page Twenty Councilman Jett.- I think if you go back to the Minutes in discussing this R®2, the very problem of variance was brought up. I said at that time that I thought 10 was too restrictive and the statement was made on more than one occasion "well, you can always apply for a variance". These gentlemen have applied for a variance. As far as creating traffic is concerned., if there are any businessmen here in the audience I don't think there is a one of them who would be unpleased to hear that we are creating more traffic instead of less traffic-, that we were going to bring in more people to the City instead of less people; that we would prefer to have more people here to spend their money here to help our businesses, Councilman Towner.- Mr, Heath made the comment that he saw no reason why we should not grant the variance. I think this is approaching it from the wrong point of view, I think you have to put yoruselves in this position where we do have a R®2 zoning ordinance that we enacted after public hearing and which we deemed proper for the City of West Covina and in accordance with our standards of development, Now the burden is on the applicant to show that he has some reason to vary from that; that he would be discriminated against unless we did grant the variance and that showing has not been made here, Councilman Snyder.- It is true that we have used the variance in the.past for other than the strict uses of a variance but we have used,it because we haven't had any other tool where the ordinance didn't cover something. Is there any way of doing this legally where we don't have to misuse a variance?' I think this is something we should consider, City Attorney, Mr, Williams: You mean since a variance is be something easier to take its place? hard. to grant there ought to Councilman Snyder.- No, They want to vary from the ordinance by four units, Let's use another instance. Say that we considered this reasonable but they didn't justify it under the rules of justifying a.variance. In the past we have tended to do this where there was no opposition and we felt the request was reasonable to vary from the ordinance although it didn't fall under the rules of justifying a variance. Isn't this, in effect, misuse of the variance and shouldn't: there be another way of doing this? City Attorneys Mr, Williams-, I think it is a misuse of the variance if the grounds don't exist, I think ordinarily it is true that the Council has found at least some existence of the four grounds, I don't think I would agree that they have been disregarded, I think in the long run such things as compliance with the plan and hardship are matters of judgement and you have differed in matters of judgement but I don't think anyone on the Council has said, "oh., well, the grounds aren't there but we will grant it anyway". I could volunteer a personal observation, I think you make many of your requirements too strict and then.you can't live up to them so in the very act of adopting the requirement you compel applications for variances and then you grant them. If you didn't make the requirements so strict and once you have made it you make people live up to it, in my"opinion you are better off, -20- n 1 I� I Co C, 2/10/64 VARIANCE NO, 479 - Continued Page Twenty -One Mayor Barnes: When the Council voted on this application it was recommended by the Planning Commission for R-1. At that time we were changing our zoning ordinances, I can't justify the variance asked for here because I feel this is more inclined to be a residential area than it is a R-3 area, Therefore, I couldn't justify in my own mind the variance requested here, Councilman Heath-. There are times when you put such restrictions onto densities, et cetera, where it makes it prohibitive to develop in a certain manner, This Council has said before they don't care anything about economics, they are not concerned with them, The point I want to bring out is this: The price of land is established by individual parcels around this piece or any piece ofproperty. It is quite possible and quite probable that by restricting the density of a piece of property that you run the land cost per unit so high you have nothing left to put into the units and you end up with dingbats with all your money into the land and very little into the units themselves and when you do this they cannot rent and all you're looking for is a slum area in a very short time, Councilman Snyder: Mayor Barnes: think is .good for West Covina, If they developed R-1 on Durness, why cant they develop R-1 here?* I think we have to look for what we can justify and what we Councilman Jett: Up at Orange Avenue on the northeast corner you have the business office of the'West Covina Unified School District, They maintain their trucks, their warehouse, t eir offices are all on that corner, Right next to that and including all of the rest of that property over to Sunset is the Queen of the Valley Hospital, Directly facing Merced is two three-story office buildings,. Across the street you have the.high school, There is land there already zoned R-P which is just above this piece of property, Across the street is a large area zoned R-P which will develop into offices and ,professional uses, This can serve as a buffer between the pro- fessional uses and the residential areas, 'Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that Variance No, 479 be denied, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Towner, Snyder, Mayor Barnes Noes: Councilmen Jett, Heath Absent: None Councilman Towner: Could I ask that the staff give us a memo.at the next meeting as to the status of the precise plan that goes with Variance No, 479? There.is a.precise plan pending somewhere and we have to do something with it, City Managers Mr, Aiassa: I'll take care of this, -21- I is i C,, Ca 2/10/64 HEARINGS m Continued PRECISE PLAN NO,, 93 (REV,, 1) Frank DePietro APPROVED plan for second story addition approved by Planning Commission Council on February 3, 1964. Mayor Barnes: IN FAVOR None Page Twenty -Two LOCATION: 1543 -1557 West Garvey between Roberto ..and Lang,, Request for approval of precise to commercial building in Zone C-1 Resolution No,, 1526. Called up by This is the time and place for the public hearing,, "IN OPPOSITION Mrs,, Charles Reeves I am speaking to uphold the 1608 Harbert Street decision of the Planning Com® West Covina mission, They granted a two- story building and we have no objection to that,, However, the Planning Commission saw fit to require a four -foot wall at the property line for the full length of the building,, We would like to see a higher wall and.a longer wall,, However, if this is what we have to have we will go along with it,, The reason for the block wall is the fact that the back doors of these stores come right out.into our .private driveway,, With a coffee shop and delicatessan that Mr,, De Pietro advertises to be there they are sure to store their trash outside and if they do it will face right into our building. The condition can also be seen directly from the freeway and it is not a very .good.advertsement for the City. We have looked behind the stores onPacific Lane and if it wasn't for the wall there it.would be a sad.;mess. Further, we will be constantly bothered by delivery trucks using,,our private driveway to.deliver to these stalls.. Unless there is a wall, the deliveries will be made to the back door,and we don't think it is fair to require us to be bothered this way. We would have to stay there and police this all the time, 'By the time we call the Police the delivery truck will have left,, We even don't allow the trash trucks in our driveway because of the damage it will do to the blacktop. Also, it will block the 20®foot driveway when our people.want to go in and outo We have been hurt enough by having this building put out in front of ours without having to be hurt by this condition. If a:block wall is not put up as it is any car that parks in back of.his building will shine their headlights right into our apartments,, We hope you will uphold the Planning Commission,, (Presented photographs to the Council and explained same,,) There being no further public testimony, the hearing was closed,, City Clerk, Mr,, Flotten: (Read Planning Commission Resolution Noa 1526,,) Councilman Heath: I can vouch for this condition, I,,have lived next door to it for quite some time,, These doors back -right -up to the driveway and I can't see how you can stop a man from putting things out the back doors of his building that he;dbe.snet want outside whether it be garbage or what®haye-you,, The back of this building can be seen directly from`the freeway and it is adjacent to an open alley,, I ®22® Co Co 2/10/64 PRECISE PLAN N0, 93 -' Continued . I Page Twenty -Three feel if you don't take some measures now to protect the adjacent prop- erty owner you will not have a chance to come back and donit at a later- date.is I think we will have to admit that this condition unless there is ,'wall put up can only lead to trouble and it will be a problem of trying to police it all'the time and there is nothing we can do about it because it is the man's own property.and he can do what he wants'tD do with it. Councilman Snyder: I agree that probably a wall'is necessary. I am wondering how - useful a four -foot wall is. I,don':t know as we should require it but it seems to me maybe the developer might want to go higher. The' wall is only required for the length of the building. This is not going to prevent delivery trucks, of cetera, from using this private driveway and going in the back between the two parking lots. They are not going'to know the difference, Councilman Heath- I was not recommending -any further than that because I thought it was being too hard on the developer but I.think in all fairness that this block wall should be the full length and it should be a five-foot block wall. How much you want to back off from that to be a'little lenient with the man I don't know but I think that is what should be put in, Councilman Jett: I tried to look at this from Mr. and Mrs. Reeves point and from Mr. DePietro's standpoint. There is a problem here and it isn't going to be solved by just putting in a block wall. If you tried to put the block wall all the way through, the way Mr. and Mrs. Reeves garage is built it would leave the driveway so narrow I am afraid you would have all kinds of problems. At the present time there is not sufficient room. Sure, they could go through there and they could make it but I would say 75% of the people would be scared to try to drive through there if you had this block wall up. They now drive two or three feet into DePietro's property to go through there. I think you all know how I feel about block walls in'.a business district especially where you have a C-1 area where you are separating C-1 businesses by putting up a block wall. I don't know whether this is the way to solve this or not. I don't think a block wall is the answer to it. Mayor,Barnes: I think we have one condition here that you don't have in ordinary C-lo We have C-l'facing the frontage road which is Reeves' property, Mr. DePietro chose to run his building the other way, backing it up to the Reeves property, this is the condition that created the problem. Had the building been facing the road the same way as the Reeves' property there wouldn't have been any problem and I think we have to do something to protect it now. If we don't, we will have a problem later on and won't be able to do a thing about it, Councilman Jett: This is possibleo Councilman Heath: Since you were there, the City and Mr. Reeves have gone over Mr. Reeves' precise plan and one of the conditions of his precise plan was that garage in the back was to be torn down and he. is in the -23- I 11 i Co C, 2/10/64 Page Twenty -Four PRECISE PLAN NO, 93 ® Continued process of tearing it off right, now so that he will have not that little space you're talking about but a full driveway at that point if a block wall is put up, Councilman Towner: What is the width of the driveway ,on the Reeves' property? Mr, Charles Reeves: In front past the commercial building is 12,8 and past the end of the large apartment house is 20 and with the garage off out there it will be 19, Councilman Towner: Mr, Charles Reeves: Councilman Jett: Mr, Charles Reeves: Are there any doors opening out of your commercial property into that driveway? No, There is one but it has been nailed shut. You have a driveway on both sides of the lot, Is there any reason you, need two? That is what was required, Councilman Jett: I would like to see studies made here and better plans, I would like to see sidewalks put along there, Mayor Barnes.: Councilman Jett: Councilman Heath: Mr, DePietro is home with a high fever and that is why'he is not here this evening, Is this holding up his project? Yes Councilman Snyder: I think there is one thing we have to consider here, We wouldn't have been able to get the wall'at all hadn't Mr. DePietro come -back for his second story. I think it is not so much a wall separating two pieces of property,as it is screening for the trash and I think it is reasonable. The only reason I might consider it going back further and I wouldn't want to do this without Mr. DePietro here to voice his opinion is I can see some conflict here of people using this private driveway and passing back and forth between the two parking lots. This could be handled by a hedge or something, Mayor Barnes: I think it could go back as far as the telephone pole at least, Councilman Towner: Certainly there is benefit to the Reeves from having, the wall in there and there is more benefit to them if they have it go all the way, I think the idea of a wall is a good one but it might be if they want the wall to go all the way and get the full benefit of it that they might share the cost, -24- C, Ca 2/10/64 PRECISE PLAN NO, 93 - Continued Page Twenty -Five Councilman Heath: I was going to say something along the line to require the five-foot wall of Mr, DePietro to the end of the building and if the Reeves want to share with Mr. DePietro to go further they could do that, Councilman Towner: The reason for the four -foot wall is a recommendation of Chief Wetherbee, Councilman Heath.: I would like to propose a com- promise to require a five-foot wall back to the end of the building and if they want something beyond that they share the cost with the other people, Councilman Jett: I wouldn't go along with a five- foot wall, I might consider the four but I wouldn't go along with the five, I think it will do Mr, and Mrs. Reeves harm by putting a five-foot one up there, Councilman Snyder: If you're going to have a wall, it seems to me that a four -foot isn't going to hide the trash and that is why you are putting it in there, Councilman Jett: This isn't their problem, Mr. Reeves problem is trash blowing all over the place and he has to get out there and pick it up. He says if they put their rubbish and stuff out there the problem he is concerned about is having to pick up all this paper and cleaning up all the time, Councilman Heath: Move that Precise Plan of Design No. 939 Revision 19 be approved with the same recommendations of the Planning Commission except that it be a five-foot wall and that the wall extend to the end of'the building as the Planning Commission recommended, Councilman Towner: The only question I have about the motion is the height of the wall, Planning Director' Mr, Joseph: Councilman Towner: The only discussion at the Commission was for the trash, to hide a nuisance factor, Is it right that Chief Wetherbee has looked into the height of the wall? Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: We asked him if he objected to this four -foot wall and he said "No". We never asked him about a five-foot wall, Mayor Barnes: Councilman Heath's motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that Precise Plan of Design No, 93, Revision 1, be approved subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, 7 C,, Ca 2/10/64 HEARINGS ® Continued ZONE CHANGE NO,, 286 City Initiated APPROVED Page Twenty -Six LOCATION- The northwest and northeast corners of Azusa and Puente,, Request to reclassify from Zone C®1 and RmP to Zone R-4 and C-1 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No,, 1523,, Mayor Barnes - This is the time and place for the public hearing,, There being no public testimony, the hearing was closed,, City Attorney, Mr,, Williams- You have approved a precise plan covering the entire property except the C®1 corner,, The property adjacent to it and along the street is built R-3. This was a R®3 precise plan,, Then we zoned it RmP which at that time permitted more uses than R®3. The permitted R®3 plus additions,, They want to build the R-3. Since we changed the rules on them by not allowing residential to be built in R®P and had approved a precise plan that was only residential and now by taking the residential out of R®P they can't build the precise plan we approved,, That is why we initiated this back to a residential zone,, The C-1 stays C®l. This is a change from RmP to R®4. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Towner, and carried, that Zone Change No,, 286 be approved,, PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE MAP TRACT N0,, 29515 Evanwood Construction Company APPROVED LOCATION- "A" Street (east side of California Avenue) between Lucille Avenue and Francisquito,, 2,,16 Acres m 8 Lots ® Area District II,, Approved by Planning Com- mission on February 5, 1964. A map was presented and Mr. Joseph gave a brief summary of the matter,, Mr,, Flotten read the recommended conditions of the Planning Commission,, Public Services Directors Mr,, Dosh- IThere was a question of whether to have the man ask for a variance to reduce the lot sizes or have a snorter parkway and we chose to ask for the required 40-to®40®foot street width and have a smaller parkway. The lots are sufficient in size. There are no sidewalks on "A" Street,, It would be part of our right of way,, Councilman Jett - City Attorney, Mr,, Williams, I was under the impression we required sidewalks on all new subdivisions,, NO; only majors and secondaries,, Motion by Councilman Towner, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that Tentative Map Tract No,, 29515 be approved subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,, ®26®