06-28-1965 - Regular Meeting - Minutes�f
a
•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 28, 1965
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of West Covina was
called to order by Mayor Nichols at 7:35 P.M. in the West Covina�City
Hall, Councilman Krieger led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Invocation
was given by.Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk,
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Nichols, Councilmen Snyder -(from 7:55 P.M,)
Krieger, Heath
Others Present: Mr, George Aiassa, City Manager
Mr. Robert Flotten', City Clerk & Admin. Assistant
Mr, Harry Co Williams, City Attorney
Mr. Herman R. Fast, Public Services Director
Mr. Harold Joseph, Planning Director
Mr, Patrick Rosetti, Assessment Engineer (to 10:15 P.M.)
Absent: Councilman Jett
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 17, 1965 - Approved as submitted as follows:
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried,
that the Minutes of May 17, 1965 be approved as'submittedo
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS
TRACT NO, 19226
Accept Street Improvements
Allwon Corporation
APPROVED
Indemnity Company bond No.
tor's final report filed,
LOCATION: Southwest corner of
Cameron and Hollenbeck.
Accept --street improvements and
authorize release of The Travelers
1086841 in the amount of $23,300.00. Inspec-
Staff recommends acceptance.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried,
to accept the street improvements in Tract No, 19226 and authorize re-
lease of The Travelers Indemnity Company bond No. 1086841 in the amount
of $23,300.00.
-1-
Co Co 6/28/65
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS-- Continued
Page Two
• TRACT NO, 22510 LOCATION: North of Cortez, west
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS of Grand,
Fontana Enterprises
APPROVED Accept street improvements and
authorize release of American
Motorists Insurance Company bonds No, 4SM 156 567 in the amount of
$239300 (grading) and No, 4SM 156 568 in the amount of $30,000 (street
improvements), Inspector's final report filed. Staff recommends
acceptance,
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman -Heath, and carried,
to approve and accept the street improvements in Tract No, 22510 and
authorize release of American Motorists Insurance Company bonds No,
4SM156 567 in the amount of $23000,00 and No, 4SM 156 568 in the
amount of $30,000,00,
PRECISE PLAN NO, 361 LOCATION: 933 Sunset Avenue
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS between Merced 6 Cameron,
Maxson Medical Facility
APPROVED Accept street improvements and
authorize release of National
Automobile and Casualty Insurance Company bond No, 200098 in the
amount of $39200,00, Inspector's final report filed, Staff recommends
acceptance.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried,
to accept the street improvements in Precise Plan of Design No, 361 and
/.a.uthorize release of National Automobile And Casualty Insurance
..Company bond No, 200098 in the amount of $3,200.00.
PRECISE PLAN N0, 326 LOCATION: West side of Azusa
ACCEPT SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Avenue, north of Workman
Richard N, Scott Avenue (Royal Coachman)
APPROVED
Accept sidewalk and driveway
improvements and authorize release of The Travelers Indemnity Company
bond No, 112231.2 in.the amount of $750, �Inspector's.final report
filed, Staff -recommends acceptance,.
Motion by Councilman Kriegerg seconded by Councilman Heath, and.carried,
to accept the sidewalk improvements in Precise Plan of Design No, 326
and authorize release of The Travelers Indemnity Company bond
No, 11.22312 in the amount of $750.00,
PROJECT C-136 LOCATION: Lark Ellen Avenue, San
APPROVE PLANS 8 SPECIFICATIONS Bernardino Freeway
STREET IMPROVEMENT to Puente Avenue,
APPROVED
Engineer's report, Approve plans
and specifications and authorize City Engineer to call for bids. Staff
recommends approval and authorization to call for bids.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath., and carried,
to approve the plans and specifications in Project C-136 and authorize
the City Engineer to call for bids,
�� -2-
Co Co 6/28/65
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS -.Continued
Page Three
.
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO, LAD 65-67
LOCATION- South of San.Bernar-
dino Freeway, east of
Lark EIIen.Avenue
RESOLUTION NO, 3185
The City Clerk presented-
LAD 65-67
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND-
ING RESOLUTION N0, 3118 ADOPTED
BY SAID COUNCIL ON THE 8TH DAY OF
MARCH, 1965, ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AN ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS,
ESTIMATE AND REPORT FOR.STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT NO, LAD 65-67
PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF
DIVISION 14, PART 1, STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE, STREET LIGHTING
ACT OF 1919 AS AMENDED FOR THE
INSTALLATION, FURNISHING OF
ELECTRIC CURRENT, AND FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN LIGHTING
FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES IN SAID
CITY FOR A PERIOD OF JULY 11 1965
TO JUNE 309 1967"
•
Mayor Nichols-
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution,
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded
by Councilman Heath, that said
resolution be adopted. Motion passed
on roll call as follows-
Ayes- Councilmen Krieger., Heath, Mayor
Nichols
Noes- None
Absents Councilmen Jett, Snyder
Said resolution was given No, 3185,
RESOLUTION N0, 3186
The City Clerk presented-
LAD 65-67
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE CITY
ENGINEER OF SAID CITY MADE
PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF
RESOLUTION NO, 3185 OF SAID CITY"
Mayor Nichols-
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
•
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded
by Councilman Heath, that said
resolution be adopted. Motion passed
on roll call as follows-
Ayes- Councilmen Krieger, Heath, Mayor
Nichols
Noes- None
Absent; Councilmen Jett, Snyder
Said resolution was given No, 3186,
-3 - 1,.
C. Co 6/28165
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. LAD 65-67 m Continued
Page Four
• RESOLUTION NO, 3187 The City Clerk presented:
LAD 65-67 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
MAKING A CONTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS TO AID AND ASSIST IN PAYING
A PORTION OF THE COST FOR
INSTALLATION FOR FURNISHING
ELECTRIC CURRENT AND MAINTENANCE
OF CERTAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES
IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PROPOSED
DIAGRAM AND PLAN NO. 65-67"
Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolutiono
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said
resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Jett, Snyder
• Said resolution was given No. 3187.
RESOLUTION NO. 3188
The City Clerk presented:
LAD 65-67
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
CERTAIN LIGHTING FIXTURES AND
APPLIANCES ON CERTAIN STREETS
AND PUBLIC PLACES IN THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA TO BE INSTALLED AND
MAINTAINED AND ELECTRIC CURRENT
TO BE FURNISHED FOR LIGHTING
SAID FIXTURES FOR A PERIOD OF
TWO YEARS COMMENCING JULY 1, 1965
AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE
FOR HEARING PROTESTS IN
RELATION THERETO11(July 26, 1965)
Mayor Nichols:
Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded
by Councilman Heath, that said
• resolution be adopted. Motion passed
on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Krieger, Heath, Mayor
Nichols
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Jett, Snyder
Said resolution was given No. 3187.
-4-
i
C�
•
C. C. 6/28/65
'CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued
ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT
ENGINEERING SERVICES
1964 FLOOD CONTROL
DRAIN PROJECT 8401
1958 SUPPLEMENTAL
PROJECT 743
Harold L. Johnson
APPROVED
Motion by Councilman
on Project 84,01 that
execute,,, the' addendum
FOR
STORM
AND
Page Five
LOCATION: Orange and Cameron
Avenues, Valinda and
Pine Avenues.
Review of revision of =wording of -
Agreement dated December 9, 19649
Engineering as requested in letter from Los
Angeles County Flood Control District,
Staff recommends approval.
Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried,
the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to
on behalf of the City.
RESOLUTION N0, 3189
The City Clerk presented:
Jones -Howard
"A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Merced Avenue
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
ADOPTED
ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN
INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE
RECORDATION THEREOF"(conveyed
by Leonard Seiber Jones and
Marcella Louise Jones, and
Leo Howard and Dorothy B.
Howard, dated June 23, 1965 for
street and highway purposes to
be known as Merced)
Mayor Nichols:
Hearing no objections, we will
,waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Krieger,
seconded -.by Councilman Heath;,that said
resolution be adopted.
Councilman Krieger:
May we have the reading of the
conditions that.had to do with
this matter when it was first
before.t%e Council?
City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: This is a portion of Ordinance
No. 922: "This section shall
be effective when and only when (1) an easement for public street
and highway purposes has been dedicated to or obtained by the City
of West Covina for the extension of Merced Avenue, 80 feet wide along
the alignment shown on the General Plan of the City between Glendora
Avenue on the northwest and the property presently owned by one
William A. Wilson and the property presently owned by the City and
acquired from John Skelton'on the southeast, and (2) a strip of the
above described property one -foot in width adjacent to the entire
frontage on Wescove Place and Truman Place has been deeded to the
City in fee and the rights of ingress and egress and access between
the above described property and Wescove• Place and Truman Place has
been cemented and deeded to the City."
Councilman Krieger: When we talk about "accept grant
deed" we are talking about the
satisfaction of the first item having to do with the easement having
to do for street purposes?
-5-
Co Co 6/28/65
RESOLUTION NO, 3189 Continued
Page Six
• Public Services Director, Mr. Fast- I believe it has only been
partially satisfied. The
motion reads that the zoning shall not become effective until 80
feet has been dedicated and of course this is only half of the 80
feet; this is 40 feet. The one -foot strip hasn't been satisfied.
U
•
Action on Councilman Krieger's motion- Motion passed on roll call as
follows:
Ayes- Councilmen Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Snyder, Jett
Said resolution was given No. 3189.
CITY -ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO,, 927
Hearing Notices
ADOPTED
The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
AMENDING SECTION 9224.5 OF THE
WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO NOTICE OF HEARING
IN ZONING MATTERS"
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and
carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said
ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as.follows-
Ayes: Councilmen Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols
Noes: None
Absent- Councilmen Jett, Snyder
Said ordinance was given No. 927,,
GALSTER PARK
ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT
City Attorney, Mr. Williams- This is an instrument that will
need City signature but only
after it has been signed by Mr. Galster. I have gone over all the
details of it with Mr. Galster. It is in the process of being typed.
I think this would be for information only unless you wish to reject
some phases of it. (Gave brief summary of agreement.)
(Councilman Snyder entered the chambers at 7:55 P.M.)
City Attorney, Mr. Williams- We had prepared and submitted
to Mr. Galster some time ago
a proposed amendment of the original deed of:gift which was recorded
in March of 1963. He never signed it and wanted some changes made.
If you wish to take the time I will relate to you briefly what the
changes would be from the original deed of gift which gave to the
City the original Galster Park.
ME
f
C. Co 6/28C65 Page Seven
GALSTER PARK (ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT) —Continued
The first condition was as set
forth in the deed of gift that an area of at least three acres be
set aside for the Girl Scouts and other organized girl groups. That
has been changed to what in that he wishes to specify that the area
be located on the knoll in the northwest portion of the.park which
would be directly south of the additional area he is giving to the
City and along the westerly boundary line; He wishes to provide
that this area will be fenced which was not formerly a condition by
the City with a five-foot chain link fence with two strands of barbed
wire on the top and that one acre of it to be mutually agreeable
between the City and the Girl Scouts of America should be used by the
Girl Scouts of America exclusivelyo The City shall provide water
and sanitary facilities to the three -acre area. This is an elaboration
on what was in it before. In the condition before was a similar
provision concerning aside three acres to be used for outdoor and
overnight camping and woodcraft activities by boys groups. The only
change in that is that he has specified that it be located in the
general southeasterly portion of the park. There is no requirement
of fencing; no exclusive requirement for one group. The City shall
provide water and sanitary facilities to the area.
Three is a purely technical
change. It formerly said "except as above provided all the rest shall
be subject to the general Galster Park". Since we have changed what
• was above provided we have changed the paragraph. It conforms to
what I have already said except that it states that "these conditions
shall also apply to the additional area being added to Galster Park".
Paragraph 6 stated formerly
that.".all conditions except No. 5" which was a condition that the
park be fenced completely, " that all other conditions shall be
binding and effective and completed within two years after the date
of this deed". That he is amending to state "that all other
conditions except No. 5 shall be completed or placed in effect by
the City within three years after the date of this deed or as soon
thereafter as is reasonable and practicable".
Condition No. 5 will be binding
five years after the date herein. As a matter of fact, No. 5 is
practically complete except for one corner where the additional area
is being added.
There is an addition that says
this- "The plaque shall be of bronze not larger than three by five
feet and may be temporarily placed until a permanent entrance is
established for the park at which time it shall be located at said
entrance in a border of rock or stone."
Then comes something that wasnet
• in the former amendment at all. These are revisions. That is this:
"Emil S. Galster does hereby grant and convey to the City all of his
right title and interest in the following described property as is
given and assigned to the City all of his right title and interest
in the estate of his wife, Gladys M. Galster, in and to the following
property" and then is described 1.2 acres at the extreme northwest
corner of the park "subject to any current taxes, assessments, et
cetera, reserving to himself and his assigns the right and easement
to locate, install,. repair and maintain over and across any of the
property except the part hereinafter dedicated as a street, water
mains, lines, pipes, facilities including pumping stations and any
-7-
i
•
Co Co 6/28/65. Page Eight
GALSTER PARK (ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT) - Continued
pipes, wires, lines, or conduits for the,;transmission of gas,
electric or any other public utility," I don't know what precisely
he had in mind but he has always had in mind that it might be
necessary to cross the park to reach some of his other property
with some of these utilities. This is granted to the City subject
to the following conditions: "That the westerly 70 feet of said
property is hereby dedicated to and accepted by the City for public
street purposes with the understanding and condition -that the City
shall grade, pave and install curbs, gutters, and other required
improvements therein without charge or expense to Galster or his
successors within one year after said portion of street is joined
and connected on the north to a dedicated and improved public street.
Provided, however,.that said time may be extended if and to the extent
necessary to determine the grade.and development of the property to
the immediate south and west of said 70 feet so dedicated,'
"Condition No, 2: The remainder
of said property shall be added -to and become part of Galster Park,
"Condition No, 3: 'The City of West Covina on demand of Mr,'Galster
shall grant to him or his successor organization such slope easement
or easements as may be required for the southerly extension continuance
of prolongation of the said street of which the 70 feet above.dedicated
shall become a part. Said slope easement or easements .to be located
generally along the westerly edge of Galster Park commencing at the
southerly edge of the 70 feet so dedicated and extending as far
south and east as may be reasonably required for the southerly extension
of said street at a suitable grade for the development of the property
to the west and south thereof,
"C. Commencing with the
date, , ," we follow the same as in the original gift that each
condition is,subsequent to the fact that breach thereof reverts the
property,
"Commencing.with the date of
this instrument the City of West Covina shall devote a reasonable
and practicable degree of time and diligence to the fulfillment
of the conditions pertaining to Galster Park,"
I have not yet mailed this
to Mr, Galster, It is almost all typed. It will be finished
tomorrow. If there is an objection to this I think it should probably
be ironed out before it is mailed,
Mayor Nichols: The document as outlined by
you corresponds to.my under-
standing of Mr. Galster's wishes at the time I met with him on the
direction of the Council and also met with the representatives of
the Girl Scouts and this is a more advantageous document with respect
to the City. I would have no objection to.the.amendments.
Councilman Snyder:
City Manager, .:Mr, Aiassa:
Councilman Snyder:
City Manager, Mr, Aiassa:
Will this two-year provision
be difficult to meet?
No.
What if the man doesn't develop?
There is a. provision in the
agreement for that,
-8-
•
•
I�
U
C, C, 6/28/65
GALSTER PARK (ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT) - Continued
Mayor Nichols. -
PRESENTATION OF GAVEL
Page Nine
I think the Council is in
agreement with this instrument.
Mayor Nichols.- I would like to take a moment to
say on behalf of the City Council
of the City of West Covina we would like to present to Dr, Snyder
with sincere good will and appreciation for his service as Mayor of
the City during the Council year just finished this gavel. All the
Councilmen join me in expressing to you our fond appreciation for
your leadership,
Councilman Snyder:
SCHEDULED MATTERS
'BIDS
ASPHALT MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS
Thank you to the City Council
and the City staff in particular,
The bids were received in office of City Clerk on June 22, 1965, at
10.-00 A,M, The bids received are as follows:
INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT - Bid Price Per Ton M - $3,50
Distance (Yard to Plant) in
Miles - 3,5 mi.
Est. Travel 6 Loading
Time (Hr,) - 0,70 hr.
*Est. Travel 6 Loading
Cost ($) - $2,31
*Est, Travel 8 Loading
Cost Per Ton ($) - $0,46
Est, Total Cost Per Ton ($) - $3,96
CONTRACTORS ASPHALT - Bid Price Per Ton ($) - $3,45
PRODUCTS, INC, Distance (Yard to Plant) in
Miles - 6,6 mi,
Est. Travel 6 Loading,,,;;,
Time.(Hr,). 1,00 hr,
*Est. Travel 6 Loading
Cost ($) - $3,30
**Est, Travel 8 Loading
Cost Per Ton ($) - $0,66
Est, Total Cost Per Ton ($) - $4,11
sm
•
C. Co 6/28/65
BIDS (ASPHALT.MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS), - Continued
ASSOCIATED ASPHALT
*Cost of Truck
Cost of Labor
Subtotal
10% Overhead
Total Cost
® Bid Price Per Ton ($) -
Distance (Yard to Plant)
Miles - 4,,6 mi.
Est,, Travel 6 Loading
Time (Hr.) - 0,,80 hr,,
Est,, Travel 8 Loading
Cost ($) - $2.64
**Est,, Travel 8 Loading
Cost Per Ton ($) - $0.53
Est,, Total Cost Per Ton
"Assume five (5) ton load
$1.00 per hour
2.00 per hour
$3.00 per hour
,,30
$3.30 per hour
Page Ten
$3075
in
(S) m $4.28
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that the
staff be authorized to issue a purchase order to Industrial Asphalt
to supply the City's requirements for Type B asphalt for the fiscal
• year 1965-66 on the basis of their low bid per ton. Motion passed on
roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Jett
Councilman, Heath: We are doing a tremendous amount
of resurfacing and we don't
put this out on contract,, Right now Cameron from Citrus to Azusa is
pretty well covered by our own crews and it has not been contracted
out,, I don't think our own crews should.be doing this work. I
think it should be contracted out,,
City Manager, Mr,, Aiassa:
LEGAL ADVERTISING
In the 1965-66 budget we are
going to go out to contract,,
The bids received in office of City Clerk on June 23, 1965, at 10:00 A,,M,,
The bids received are as follows:
West Covina Tribune - per column inch
• first insertion $1,,95
subsequent 1,,79
San-Gabr.i-gl Valley Daily Tribune
per column inch
first insertion $3o.32
subsequent 3.18
City Clerk, Mr,,,Flotten: The West Covina Tribune is
printed once weekly,, The San
Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune is printed daily,,
-10-
C, C. 6/28/65 Page Eleven
BIDS (LEGAL ADVERTISING) - Continued
• Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that the
contract for legal advertising be awarded to the West Covina Tribune
on the basis of their low bid, Motion passed on roll call as follows -
Ayes: Councilmen Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols
Noes- None
Absent: Councilman Jett
HEARINGS
Ae11-61-2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT LOCATION- Barranca Avenue and
PROTEST HEARING Virginia Avenue and
other streets and
rights -of -way,
Hearing of protests or objections to the confirmation of assessments
to cover the installation of sanitary sewers in the A-11-61-2 Sanitary
Sewer District, Set for hearing this date in'the "Notice of Filing
Assessment and Diagram" dated June 10, 1965,
Mayor Nichols- Mr, City.Clerks have you the
. necessary affidavits?
City Clerk, Mr, Fiotten: Yes,
Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried,
that said affidavits be received and placed on file,
Mayor Nichols: Mr, City Clerk, have you
or objections against the assessment? received any written protests
City Clerks Mr, Flotten: We have received six protests.
The.first one is from Mr, Don A.
Downs, 226 South Barranca Street, dated June.18, 1965, The Council
has copies of this protest, (Read said letter,)
We have a letter directed to
the City of West Covina dated June 240,1965 in objection to this from
John D, Meyers, Lot No, 156, (Read said letter,)
We have a Ietter..dated.June 25y
1965 in opposition to this matter from Garnes Kittelson, Lot No, 18,
Tract 21014; 3252 White Birch Drive, (Read said letter,)
We have a letter -dated June 25,
• 1965 in opposition to this matter from Glen Gendeloff, 3401 Jodee,
(Read said letter,)
We have a letter of protest from
Irving M, Rubinstein, M.D., Assessment No, 121-8, (Read said letter,)
We have a letter dated.,.June 27,
1965 in protest from Christian L. Justi, 3133 Sunset Hill Drive,
(Read said letter.)
-11-
C�
0
Co Co 6/28/65 Page Twelve
Ae11m61®2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT® Continued
Mr. Patrick Rosetti Regarding Mr. Downs, he is
Lawrence J. Thompson referring to a flag lot. (Drew
Assessment Engineers sketch on board and explained
Manhattan Beach same.)
Mrs. Jean Downs: I don8t understand why I am
taxed for 65 feet of frontage
plus the width of my lot which I believe my driveway is.now an easement,
Mr, Patrick Rosettio That property has been assessed
for 65 feet plus one house lot.
If this had been on a frontage lot you would have had over 130 feet
of assessment.
Mrs. Jean Downs: I have people in front of me
facing the street and they are
paying for the same footage..
Mr, Patrick Rosettio Had this been on a frontage
basis it would have been eleven,
twelve hundred dollars. We deducted what it would cost to run the
line back. As far as this is concerned, this is getting a sewer
service right to her property line. She has to pick this up before
we have given her credit for what it might cost.
Councilman Heath:
Could both of those laterals
be hooked into one?
Mr. Patrick Rosettio Both of these lots in the back
are not under one ownership.
You might not want it on one lateral. It has been common practice
to have two laterals; one serving each parcel of land unless it is
the same ownership.
Councilman Snyder: Shouldn't Lot 38®B share in
the easement?
Mr. Patrick Rosettio No. I gave him an acreage
assessment.
Regarding the letter from John D.
Meyers, Assessment No. 156, he has a similar problem -® a smaller frontge
and a larger rear dimention, We tried to average out to rectangularize
the lot, If you have a large frontage and a small rear then we
average out again so we come to an equitable distribution of the cost.
Mr. John D. Meyers: I have one question. Did you
see this lot?
Mr. Patrick Rosettio Yes.
Mr. John D, Meyers: (Stepped to the board, drew a
sketch and explained same.)
My assessment was $903 and some change. At the curb line the pro-
longation of the side lot line, a distance between the two in a
straight aline which the sewer was installed in is some 90.5 feet.
This would be;the`absolute maximum of frontage of main line that
could possibly be installed in front of this lot. This lot is in a
subdivision that is contained within a zone TII, R-l. There are
-12
C. Co 6/28/65 Page Thirteen
A'11-61®2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT m Continued
certain minimum requirements for lot areas required by the City.
This lot no more than meets those requirements. Therefore, it would
appear that all lots on this street should be assessed in the same
manner. They are all R-1 lots; all in area III. There are only
single family residences there. Therefore, the assessment of $903
to me is out of line.
I attended the original hearing
on this matter and at that time the Public Works Director told the
audience that the approximate cost of this installation would be
somewhere between six and seven dollars and possibly closer to six
per lineal foot of main line. The estimated cost at that time was
set up as $252,000 and we were told between six -fifty and.seven a
foot. There was no mention made at that time of a charge for joining
or annexing to the County Sanitation District, which was $103.91 in
addition to the assessment, plus the cost of installation from the
curb to the house. This is a total of some thirteen hundred dollars
for sewer connection. The contract was let in October and the work
started and we got sewers. This particular sewer is an entity within
itself as I see it. We have an established manhole at Trona that
is working. We run 347 feet of main line and install another manhole
so all we have done is a manhole and 347 feet of main line plus the
house connections. The total of the seven lots is sixty-three hundred.
If you take that $69381 and take 347 feet of.pipe as your basis you
. come up with a figure of $18.36 a lineal foot. I am excluding the
house connections and I am excluding the manholes. This $18.36 goes
on both sides of the street, not one side of the street. There was
an area assessment in here on lots that had an existing sewer. The
area assessment was $104.47 a lot. However, they have sewer and these
people put it in under a private contract. That work was done
approximately a year ago. There were six lots involved. The job
was done in August of 1963; the total of the contract was $2,210.75
for six lots. That is roughly $368.46 for a job done under a private
contract. It is nine hundred ollars on a public contract. I can't
reconsile that at all.
Mr. Patrick Rosetti° They have their own system but
they're paying $104 apiece for
the.area assessment to help defray the cost of the main collection
system. On Sunset you have an eight -inch line. As these move over
toward the central collection system you get bigger lines. If we
charge this area just for an eight -inch sewer, who is going to pick
up the extra width and cost of that particular system before it
enters into the trunk system?
Mr. John D. Meyer. On Holt and Garvey, at the
corner, there is a triangle,
you assessed it $9879 Assessment No. 106. This is a commercial
lot. I am living on a R-1 lot in a Rml zone. On the'C lot they can
• put up a high rise building and have 100 rooms and maybe five, six
or seven hundred people going in and out of there every day and use
the facilities. Do you feel it is fair that a lot of that description
should be taxed or assessed some eight dollars more than the person
who is living in a single family home in a R-1 zone? Do you feel that
is a proper spread? Do you feel if -you go down there on Holt Avenue
on the south side of the freeway between Barranca where the Hideaway
is and the office building, that this is your consideration of a fair
spread? I can't reconcile that sort of a spread at all'
_13®
L�
co co 6/28/65
Page Fourteen
A-11-61-2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT Continued
Councilman Snyder: Isn't it true that you cannot
assess commercial any more than
you can R-l?
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: The principle you follow, it
may cost no more to build a
sewer to serve the May Company than it costs to build a sewer to
serve a private house. If you are building one sewer to serve each
one it costs the same and they pay the same. You take the cost of
installing the sewer, you spread it according to the benefit served.
Mr. Patrick Rosetti: We have made studies along those
lines. We .would increase the
charge in commercial areas in an eight -inch sewer if that sewer
will not serve that area but if an eight -inch sewer starts in a
residential area and runs through a heavy commercial area and that
eight -inch sewer will still carry the load then there is no extra
charge because you are not spending any extra money to serve these
extra people.
Mr. John D. Meyer: In the Charvers Heights tract
consisting of 44 lots, this
construction was done by the L. D. & M Construction Company, who
are sewer contractors. 29957 feet of eight -inch pipe. The price
was $2.45 a foot. We are talking here about an eighteen -dollar sewer.
However, the sewer in Charvers Heights was put in before the streets
were put in but thereshouldn't be a sixteen -dollar difference.
Mayor Nichols:
exhorbitant; the spread is unfair. Is
you can give us?
You have conveyed the fact
that you feel the cost is
there any additional testimony
Mr. Patrick Rosetti: Any one of these contractors when this contract went out
for construction, it was open bid. Any one could have bid the low
bid. We took the lowest bid. When you go outside of this type of
procedure, and you go into craw land,, you can build sewer for two,
three dollars a foot but these men never show -up at the public bids
and come in with their low bids.
Mr. John D. Meyer; I think this spread is absolutely
ridiculous. I think it is
discriminatory and I don't think it has any place whatsoever. I
think your spread was absolutely wrong.
Councilman Snyder: I would like to know if you
ma
"discriminatory" who it was against and whythe statement it was
• Mr. John D. Meyer: In the case of the commercial
lots you charged them less than
you charged the single family residences. I am not concerned about
the frontage.
Councilman Snyder:
Mr. John D. Meyer:
That is the way we do it.
There is a usage value there.
-14-
I
C. C. ' 6128/65 Page Fifteen
A'11®61®2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT m Continued
Mayor Nichols: You're speaking about a procedure
that is universally used in
Southern California for the assessment of properties and I think
being a long-term experienced contractor you know as well as we do
that this Council cannot upset a method of assessments that is wide
spread and accepted in all legal jurisdictions for this purpose.
Mr, John Do Meyer: That is not so. It is not
accepted that way, There are
many assessments where they take into account the various types of
lots,
Mayor Nichols:
Our attorney tells us the
spread has to be upon the
frontage and size of the lot,
Mr, Patrick Rosetti: We have used this particular
procedure for 40 years and the
two factors ®® the bids ®m the City has to go by the lowest bid given
to the City, Secondly,, as far as use is concerned,, that does not
enter into it,
Councilman Heath: Is this the sanitation district
that runs parallel to the wash
from Citrus up through Barranca and across and up Virginia?
Mr, Patrick Rosetti: Yes,
Councilman Heath: Does this have a lot of footage
on that run which cannot be
assessible to anybody directly on that run and the cost of..that long
run has to.be shared by all property owners? Is that the reason why
the price is'running so high?
Mr, Patrick Rosetti: Part of that is the reason
because you have a long area that
we cannot pick up frontage on both sides, If you do run through an
area where you can't assess both sides,, we are talking specifically
about services to the property, how we arrive at the assessment if we have a long run in order to empty ,the sewers into a main
collective system, it has to be paid some how and we spread it
through the entire area.
The next protest is Kittelson,
He is questioning the legitimacy of the resolution and the procedures,
I don't think there is any question of that. Everything has been
carried out according to the law,
City Attorney,, Mr, Williams:
The regular processes have been
followed,
Mayor Nichols. An individual citizen does not
need to authorize the City
Council of this City to pass on such matters,
Mr, Patrick Rosetti: The next.one is Gendeloff,- That
is just a general protest,
I
•
0
•
C, C,, 6128/65 Page Sixteen
A111 -61-2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT - Continued
Mr, Kittelsons I had sewer lines put in my home
on' Butterfield about five years
ago, the same footage, and it was three hundred and some odd dollars,,
Councilman Snyder: When I came on the Council five
years ago sewers were going about
four to five dollars and since then, especially the last two years,
they have gone up to at least seven,,
Mr, Patrick Rosette*. It also depends on the area. If
you have a flat area it is
cheaper to put in sewers,, As they undulate you have to dig deeper
trenches,,
Mr. Rubenstein would like to
have all the lots in his particular locale assessed the same amount.
Since they are not the same dimensions, they vary about forty dollars,,
I have checked that and it is in accordance with what we have done
throughout the area,,
The last one is from Christian
Justi, He wanted to know whether the legal procedures were followed
through on the taking of the bids, advertising of the bids and whether
the contract was awarded for the complete job,, It was, It was a
fixed price,
I might mention from the figures
we quoted at the time, they were the contract figures, There are
other charges besides that -- design engineering, assessment engineering,
bond charges, printing of the band, collection of the bond, printing
and advertising, et cetera,, The contract came in 17% less than we
estimated,
Mayor Nichols:
Mr,, Patrick Rosettio
lateral at the time the resolution of
final figure is $6,97.
Mayor Nichols
Did you inform the people before-
hand of the extra additdonal
charges?
We quoted $7,78 per assessible
front foot plus your house
intention was adopted, The
Is there any further public
testimony relative to the matter
before us?
Mr, John Hiatt I had an assessment of $917,
322 Campana Flores Drive That is for connecting the
West Covina sewer to one house. I feel
that these assessments were
far over and above what we were told at the time we started this
district, The fact we weren't advised there were other charges
I think issomething that is sadly lacking and should be told the
people at the time whether they want to sign-up for it or not, I
want to protest and say I am not only doing this for myself but
several of my neighbors are doing the same thing,, My neighbor
behind me was charged $917; Dr, Johnson's was $19100 and he is going
to put in a swimming pool and won't be able to connect to the sewer;
$347 to Sammy Snead's property and he can't even connect to the sewer,
-16-
Co Co 6/28165 Page Seventeen
A'I1m61m2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT Continued
• I think these assessments should be how many are going to use it,,
If this sewer line you had to come from Citrus to Barranca, why
wasnet it put through some of those places where it is going to be
developed later and you could use it twice instead of running it
down the wash?
0
Mr,, Patrick Rosettio The sewer design has to be
designed so as you locate your
lines you get flow. The laterals are $150 each,, The design
engineer has to use.ingenuity to bring those flow points where he
wants them.
Mr. John Hiatt: I think it is not fair and I
think it should be objected to
and I think some kind of injunction should be gotten against this
district.
Mr. Robert Broadwell
35 Campanes Flores Drive
West Covina
charges above the contract?
considerably or at least we
like clarification of what
may be excessive.
I think I am'just here to ask a
question. There seems to be one
thing about which we are all
puzzled, What are the extra
.This seems to have run the cost up
assume that has run the cost up. We would
these charges are and whether those charges
Mr. Patrick Rosettio Assuming theoretically you have
a street a thousand feet long
and you have 20 lots, 50 feet each. You build a thousand feet of
sewer and you spread the charge.over those 20 lots. We are talking
about service to a.property. This flag lot has to build 225 feet
of pipe to reach his house.
Councilman Snyder:
Mayor Nichols:
cost and the assessment is spread so
personal charge to get that service
excessive charge for the line,,
Mr, Patrick Rosettio
Even though he has a larger
area it isn't too usable so you
give him an adjustment.
For this person to get sewer
service there is a certain
the person.that has a greater
on his property doesn't pay an
That's right.
Councilman Heath- If I understand some of the
things that have been said this.
evening, it is inconsistent with what I have heard over the past
seven years. The thought is this: If a man has a large piece of
property and he has a house far to the rear of this property, he is
going to have to pay a certain amount of money to run that pipe
from.the property line back.to his house. The man next door may have
the same size lot and he puts his house up near the street,, Do I
understand you to say the man who has a house to.the rear of his
property is going to have an additional cost of a longer line on his
property and is therefore given a consideration, an extra considera-
tion on the main line or on his assessment?
®17m
.1.0
C. C. 6128/65
Page Eighteen
A'I1m61®2 SANITARY.SEWER DISTRICT Continued
Mr. Patrick Rosettio No. You determine the benefits,
The benefits to him are less.
Councilman Snyder: Aren't you saying he is forced
to put his house back there? If
it is a normal lot and he puts his house back, he doesn't get the
benefit?
Mr. Patrick Rosettio That's right,,
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: It is the shape and the dimens:ion
of the 1®t which would require
it to be located in such and such a places There is a greater benefit
to a man whose lot is so designed that the sewer comes within 20 feet
of where he needs it than there is benefit to.,a man whose lot is so
designed that he is going to have to build 200 feet of lateral to
reach the part of his lot that is buildableo
Councilman Heath:
I don't see that any
distance
travelled behind the
property
line is any concern of anyone else
except the man owning that
property.
City Attorney, Mr.
Williams:
It has to do with the
benefit
derived from that property
from the location
of the particular
sewer.
Councilman Heath:
I feel all we should
be concerned
with is bringing the
lateral
up to the property
line. If that house
is 500 feet back he
shouldn't
be given any extra
consideration.
Mro Patrick Rosettio The amount of sewer you are
constructing across the front.
of that piece of property is not the same as 100 feet across another
piece of property. Where the house is on the property is one of the
factors we take into consideration but it is not the single factor.
Councilman Heath: I don't think I have ever heard
of a condition or a consideration
given before on any of our districts wher.e a man..since he had to run
a long distance was given an allowance.
Mr. Patrick Rosettio
Councilman Snyder:
Mr. Dick Hartshort
• 221. South Grand
West Covina
This is just one method of
trying to spread the district.
We haven't had any district
quite comparable with this one.
I have a letter from my neighbor
who was to attend tonight but he
was unable to come. (Presented
said letter to the City Clerk.
I am protesting because I think
the assessment is too high. What created the design of the sewers
was the substantial amount of acreage area. On the residential lot
we.are.talki•ng approximately $2,5OO per acre for sewer improvements
and we.are talking about $350 an acre for acre improvemements. It.is:
my understanding, that the first 150 feet is assessed on a footage
BVII
C, Co 6/28/65
Page Nineteen
A'11m61-2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT _ Continued
• basis, the remainder is assessed on an acreage basis and yet the design
of the.sewer was demanded by the acreage which is there. I think the
big problem is the differential on a lot improved and the large amount
of acreage that is involved with the vast benefits received,
0
0
have a written protest signed
L. B. Serles protesting
(Read said letter,,)
We have had questions directed
to the legal counsel relative
to the legality of a charge
against the residential allotted
to if we could get an answer on
I would ask why it is not
egularities existing and we don't
le could come in and ask any one
cetera, why this couldn't be
of attachments couldn't be
ivi ed feasibly by the number of people concerned and come up
with an equitable price?
City Attorney, Mr,, Williams:
Councilman Snyder:
What would you think would be
equitable?
Mr,, Dick Hartshorn: When you talk a piece of
commercial property, part of
them are R-39 part are commercial, part R-1,, When you talk a
residential lot of 159000 square feet, ►'x" number of feet involved
as frontage, "x" number'of depth, it is total utilization,, When
you talk a commercial lot of 100 feet of frontage and 500 feet of
depth, you don't cut if off at 150 feet and say you can't use the
lot because on a commercial lot it is completely utilized,, I don't
think this has been examined closely enough,,
City Clerk9 Mr,, FLotten:
I
bu
Assessment No,, 148, Lot 4, Tract.1,9.538,,
Mr. Jaines--Ryan
9 Campanes Flores Drive
West Covina
to commercial and we would apprecia
that either now or at a later time,,
feasible as long as we have the irr
get tangible answers where you peop
of us on allowances, frontages, et
``x►► amount of sewers and ►►x►► amount
d' 'd
It is_hard to give catagorical
answers because you get a
variety of circumstances. I think as nearly as you can get catagorical
however you would say this: We are not concerned with what the
zoning or the present development is,, We are concerned with making a
sewer available to a certain size and shape of parcel of property
and to the amount of benefit that parcel gets in relation to where
the sewer is,, So that if it is immediately abutting it, it gets
more benefit assuming it is the same size than if it has to go down
a 10-foot easement and the lot is 200 feet removed from where the
sewer is, It makes no difference whether it is commercial, residential,
R-3, R-19 whether it is vacant, whether there is something on it,
whether it is zoned now commercial or may hereafter be,, None of these
things have any bearing on it. It costs the City at the lowest bid
it can get so much to put in a sewer, It is divided not amoung the
number of people because one man may own 100 acres and another
one -tenth of an acre,, It is divided among the land in proportion that
the land benefits from the sewer. Now, all we are discussing is the
method by which we do that and this is the gentleman who has been in
this business all his life but the principles I.have announced I
think Mr, Rosetti will tell you are correct,,
Mr, Patrick Rosetti: That is correct,
-19-
Co Co 6/28/65 Page Twenty
A111-61-2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT m Continued:
City Attorneys Mr. Williams: Wedon°t care whether it is a"house,
apartment house, a May Companys
whether it is zoned commercial or residential; it is ,hu t you take_the.
total cost, you divide it among the land in accordance with the benefit
received.
Mr. James Ryan: Irrelevant of the amount of the land
they only make one connection. Is -
that the benefit that that land re-
ceives from the sewer?
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: No. If the land consists 6f'100
acres and has only'mne connection
it has the potential of developing a full 100 acres connected to this -
sewer and it will be charged for the potentials not what happens to be
there now.
Mr. James Ryan: My question is whether you as a
City Council and we as citizens
can charge those people a greater amount as we as the City of West C
Covina can charge the commercial people more money?
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I doubt it would stand up'in court.
The courts have time and again an-
nounced the principles that I have mentioned to you. Tomorrow'what'.is
residential may be commercial. I think it would not be sustained i.n
•court to assess a different proportion or rate to commercial than to
residential unless because of the nature of the use it required a
larger sewer than otherwise would have been required.
Mr. James Ryan:
City Attorney, Mr. Williams:
Could I inquire about these addi-
tional costs? Where may we get a
figure on those?
I don't know.
There being no further public testimony, the hearing was closed.
Councilman Snyder: Mr, Rosetti, there have been
charges made tonight that these
costs were in excess of what they were notified earlier. They were
notified they might be as high as $7.78. The cost actually is what?
Mr. Patrick Rosetti:
Councilman Snyder:
Mr. Patrick Rosetti:
Councilman Snyder:
$6098.
And the cost of the contract?
The contract at the time was
let out at $175.052.79.
What were the additional charges?
Mr. Patrick Rosetti: The total charge is $226„335.46.
You have $175,052.79 contract
cost; engineering and inspection, $33,756.39; preparation of resolution,
notices, contracts, et cetera, $3,501.06; printing and advertising,
$1,057.62; expense of making assessment, $3,615.02. The estimated
cost of a printing service and checking of bonds, $2,550; the cost
of easements, $5,698; and your total,incidental $50,178.09; Capacity
rights (for area one only), $1,104.58.
C, Co ' 6/28/.65 Page Twenty -One
Al 1®61Q2 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT ® continued.
•
Councilman Snyder:
The first notice the public gets
of the possible cost of this is
the postcard?
1
Mr,.Patrick Rosetti:
The first one doesn't have an
they receive is
amount on it, The only time
an amount when we
send out the final card, Everything
prior to that is an estimate,
Councilman Snyder:
Where did the people get the
idea these were coming in at
five dollars?
Mr, Patrick Rosetti:
The only -thing I can think of,
by the title of the project,
means when some of this area was considered for a sewer it might
have been in 1961 and it was late
163 before they got started on it,
That would make a considerable difference in.the amount,
Councilman Snyder:
There is public announcement of
dollar cheaper, There was public
$7,78 and it comes in almost a
announcement and I don't think
should let these announcements go
in double what we said it
we
in unanswered that this is coming
was because
it is not,
•
Councilman Krieger:
Mr, Rosetti, I broke the
incidental costs down to
$2,30 a lineal foot, Is that approximately correct?
Mr, Patrick Rosetti:
That is about right,
Councilman Krieger:
Is the ratio of incidental
expenses to construction cost in
line with your past experience?
Mr, Patrick Rosetti:
In an area of this nature, yes.
seventeen and eighteen percent but
Normally it runs between
that is an area where they have no
excessive depth, easements, et cetera,
Councilman Krieger: I took your $6,98 and applied
it as against the formula you
say you adopted uniformally throughout this district and then sub-
tracted that from a specific assessment within the district and
divided what was left by the front footage and I came out with
$2,30 which must be applicable to incidental cost per foot,
Mr, Patrick Rosetti: If you use your $509000 against
the contract cost of construction
• then you are coming up with a high figure,
Councilman Krieger: The figure I come up with is
33 1/3%, All I wa& asking was
based on your experience and I received a partial answer, that this
district involves certain unique characteristics that cause that
ratio to be greater than it would ordinarily be,
Mr, Patrick Rosetti: Yes., First, the cost would be
on the easements but the 17% I
-21-
•
C. C, 6/28/65 Page Twenty -Two
A111-61-2 - SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT - Continued
quoted does not fit into that formula. Then you are running into
about 30% if you use that same formula.
Councilman Krieger: Were there any other factors
other than easements particularly
applicable to this district that caused it to be unusual?
Mr. Patrick Rosetti: Possibly the engineering costs.
Councilman Krieger: There is no issue that $6.98
was the lineal foot cost, is
there?
Mr. Patrick Rosetti: No.,
Councilman Snyder: What did the last three sewer
districts in the City cost?
Public Services Director, Mr. Fast: I don't have that information
available.
Mr. Patrick Rosetti: The last one was about $7.25
or $7.35. That was sandy soil.
• Councilman Snyder: That was on flat land. Mr.
state what figures you feel are wrong.Meyer, I would ask you to just'
Mr. John D. Meyer: I have property up here where
we have a 65-foot plot and the
sewer assessment was three hundred some odd dollars on Sunset
Avenue and there was a street opening there.
Councilman Snyder: When was that?
Mr. John D. Meyer: It was March of 1961.
Councilman Krieger: We have had a long hearing and
we have.had.approximately 15
protests out of 330 parcels which seems'to boil.down that the total
assessment was too high and -then as applied to the specific property
it was too high. We have had a breakdown as to the total district.
and with respect to the applicability to the individual properties.
If you took each of these cases and resolved it --in the benefit of
the protestant you would penalize somebody else. You only have one
district; you have so much cost and you have to allocate it among the
district. You accomodate one and penalize another. The test, I
assume, is one of uniformity. There was a uniform formula applied.
They took into consideration the shapes, dimensions and location of
• the property; the..benefits to the property. He testifies that he is
an experienced man; nobody questions his qualifications in the field.
I didn' hear._,ppne:.protest that showed that there was a discrimination
as applied -,to an individual lot deviating in any.respect from the
formula established for all lots. Certainly people are unhappy but
the test isn't are you unhappy; the test is do you have a reason to
be unhappy. Unless we can find that people protesting these things
have a reason to be unhappy, that they have been picked on, that"\they
have been singled out for unfair treatment as..compared to all their
neighbors, I don't think we have any basis for upholding their
protests.
-22-
Co Co 6/28/65
A'I1-61-2 SANITARY -SEWER DISTRICT - Continued
Page Twenty -Three
• RESOLUTION NOo 3190 The City Clerk presented:
A111-61-2 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT OF BARRANCA
STREET, VIRGINIA AVENUE, AND
OTHER STREETS AND RIGHTS -OF -
WAY, A'11-61-2"
Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will
waive further reading of the
body of the resolution.
Regarding the formula on
acreage assessment that you stated, is this a decision that is based
upon your ability to discriminate as to where these charges should
be made or is this some legal implication in this also relative to
assessment of commercial properties versus R-1 property?
Mr. Patrick Rosetti: The general amount that is used
throughout the various agencies
that do assess property is this. Los Angeles uses a little higher.
They go to $400 but through Orange County and the smaller cities is
is $300 on an acreage basis.
• Mayor Nichols; Nooprocedure was followed in
been followed in any other instance totyouraknowledge that you are
aware of?
.S
Mr. Patrick Rosetti:
Mayor Nichols:
or R-3, it would be in violation of
.you are aware of, is that right?
Mr. Patrick Rosetti;
That's right.
If this.assessment were more
heavily placed.upon commercial
all assessment procedures that
Yes.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said
resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Snyder.,
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Jett
Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols
Said resolution was given No. 3190.
(Mr. Rosetti left the chambers at 10:15 P.M.)
-23-
Co Co ' 6/28/65
HEARINGS 'Continued
• UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO,, 719 REV,, 1 LOCATION;
.Home Savings 8 Loan Association
APPROVED
Page.Twenty-Four
Pass 8 Covina Road -
between Valley Blvd,,
and Francisquito,,
Request to amend conditions 13 and 33 of City Council Resolution
No,, 2570 denied by Planning Commission Resolution No,, 1771. Condition
13 relates to the fee schedule of the dump site. Condition 33 relates
to an ingress and egress road to the dump site,, Appealed by applicant
on April 120 1965,, Held over from April 26th to May loth and then to
June 2.8th, at applicant's request,,
City Clerk, Mr,, Flotteno (Read Planning Commission
Resolution No,, 1771.)
Mayor Nichols; This is the time and place for
the public hearing,,
IN FAVOR
Mr. Laurence M,, Pennington I am representing Home Savings
900 Wilshire and Loan in this.matter and
Los Angeles indirectly the B,,B,,K. Company
who will ultimately be the
operator of these facilities. Regarding scales, in our survey and
• in our knowledge, there is no privately operated facility in Los
Angeles County or in Orange County or any surrounding county that
is required to use scales in their operation. The one place where
scales are maintained for the purpose of determining price are in
the County sanitation facility districts and I don't.believe it was
ever intended that they install those operations with the purpose of
competing with the private operations,, We'are willing to concede
that there is merit in the requirement for the installation of
scales but we feel that if this requirement is to be.imposed. on the
operator that it is directly related to the second requirement,,
(Stepped to map and explained same,,)
It was the original intent that
we use Azusa Avenue, the extension, when completed, that the access
to this facility would be directly off of the extension of Azusa
Avenue. The requirement was put in until such time as that -was
installed that a road would be built from Nogales Street to come clear
across this property and up to this area allowing access on either
one of these ,dumpso When Azusa Avenue was completed, -this road would
be abandoned and the access would be off.the extension of Azusa,, A...
scale of the type that would be required to accomodate this particular
facility will cost the operator in the area of $16'000.and it has to
be installed in an elaborate pit and balanced,,. As I.understand from
Your Engineering Department it is now anticipated that the design
for the completion of Azusa Avenue will be completed in July of this
• year; that the right-of-way will be acquired sometime during the
month of September; and the extension actually started sometime in
December or. January of 1966. This would mean that for a period of a
few months we would have to run a road from Nogales some three miles
up to that area, install a.scale in an area where as soon as the
extension was completed we would have to discontinue the operation
..long enough to have the scales physically moved to the new area
which is anticipated to be used off of Azusa Avenue,,
-24-
C. C. 6128i65 Page Twenty -Five
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 7Ig REVISION 1.®.Continued
_ o
I never understood the decision
of the Planning Commission on the ingress. The one argument that
was, put forth in the Planning Commission as.to why this would be or
was to be rejected was because some several years ago when the Planning
Commission made this and Azusa Avenue was in the future, they made
this requirement and for that reason there must have been some logic
in the City Council and the evidence we were able to present at
that particular hearing could not overcome the decision of the City
Council some several years before. The relocation of this road would
be a great advantage to the operator and I am sure ultimately to the
public who will usethis facility but I think there are several things
that should be pointed out to this Council that would be an advantage
also to the City of West Covina.
Nogales Street is presently
a street which is not built to accomodate heavy traffic. A part of
Nogales Street that would have to be used by trucks would necessarily
have to go through an area belonging to the County of Los Angeles
that is now posted with a weight limit of 69000 pounds. That ordinance
would have to be repealed in order to allow the vehicles to use the
facility. As the road extends from its present limit of Nogales
Street and over the property the road would have to be ®m part of
that road goes through the municipality of Walnut and I question the
jurisdiction of this Council to require that.the operator put a road
• in an area beyond their own jurisdiction. Nogales Street presently
is a residential area and all trucks using.this facility would not
only go through a residential area to get to the road that would have
to be built but also would go directly in f a t: of an existing high
school.
Pass.and Covina Road where we
would make an access at the moment until Azusa is continued isnow
being used for just the type of traffic we would ultimately get in
our facility.. We would be maintaining traffic on a road now being
used for that purpose and eliminate the necessity of creating a new
route going through a residential area and past a.high school and
also eliminate the possibility that ordinances now existing in the
County of Los Angeles would have to be repealed and that a road would
have to run and permission obtained from the municipality of Walnut
to allow that road.
Mr. Karzarian, who is the
operator of the proposed facility, will make some comment.
Mr. Ben Karmarian, Jr. We have surveyed the area
908 Van Ness Boulevard quite thoroughly. We are in
Torrance the process of gathering all
the information possible
about the scales. You have heard the cost of that. We feel we can
• do the job properly with the one scale at.the present time. In the
future we feel we possibly might have to go to two scales. Over and
above that, we are told now that it will take some eight weeks before
we can have the scale in operation.. Looking at that point, another
two months would put us fairly close to the end of the year ®®
approximately four months before the road would be underway. We are
opposed to.the idea of relocating the instrument after it has been
placed.
There being no further public testimony, the hearing was closed.
-25®
C, Co 6128/65
Page Twenty -Six
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMITNOo 712 REVISION 1 m Continued
Councilman Heaths What was the original intent to
specify that a scale be used?
Councilman Snyder: The Planning Department memo of
March 3 answers thato It
states that in effect space seems logical because you are allowing
them space to fill but the report goes on to say that a piece of
brush which may be five yards when it is brought into the yard will
compact into one. yard whereas solid material may not compact at all,
That is one reason why scales are a more accurate measure of what you
are compacting down to,
Councilman Heath: I feel the man operating this
should be able to operate this
at his own discretion, If he feels he should go by volume and that
he is going,.to make more money this way and it is betters -form to
proceed that way I would just as soon let them go by volume, He is
in a competitive field and he knows what he has to do to compete.
I wonder why we made a determination for this?
Councilman Snyder: If you go by compacted volume,
how would the operator charge the
people that were dumping?
• Mr, Laurence M, Pennington: There has been.a long history of
the advocating of the use of
scales in dump facilities, I think you will find that you are going
to have as many or more inequities in the installation of scales
as you are going to have in the "eyeball" system, or whatever your
engineer called it. No one using the dump facilities ever brings in
a specific load of one particular material, In any operation that
now has the use of scales they have a varied.price for varied materials,
Councilman Snyder: The Planning Department suggested
that you charge so much per cubic
yard or so much per ton, whichever rate applies to the material,
Mayor Nichols: The thing that concerns me is
the fact that there are other
such operations in the area who are�not being required to operate
on the basis of a scale system and to impose this I think would be
an undue hardship on an operator to require he do something that
others do not do,
Planning.Director, Mr, Joseph: The majority of the work done
on this first part was by the
Engineering Department, However, they did'discuss it with us. First
the objective of the Planning Commission and the City Council in 1962"
when these applications were posed to the City was to make a model
. operation out of this, We noted the.fact there -were private
operations that went on a pure volume basis. It was the concern of
the City Council in 1962 to review every way of doing this, both
that which is common to the private operators and that which is
common .to the County which operates under a stricter set of regulations
which happens to be the weight, It was the choice of the City at that
time to require the most strict and the most possibly correct means of
juding'how much is coming in, Secondly, we note there were limits
placed on..the amount'of fill that could be stored in this property and
the Planning` Commission and Council decided:that if you are going to
aim at._one_A,nd a'half million cubic yards you should have a more
-26-
•
C. C. 6128/65
Page Twenty -Seven
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO, 71 REVISION 1 -Continued
exact way of determining the weight rather than just "eyeballing",,
Thirdly we submitted to you copies of'the City Council°s statements
that went into this at the February, 1963 meeting when they were
talking about fees -and revenues to the community and the Council at
that time felt that the best way of doing it would be by giving a
man a ticket when he went in, weighing him when he came out and
you would have a weight to determine how much fee.
Councilman Snyder: It is my impression that these
scales.donet cost that much; that
they are fairly movable from one location to the other. Secondly,
it seems to me San Dimas's method might be more equitable and serve
the purpose better where you have so much per yard'or so much per ton,
whichever is the most.
Councilman Heath: Are we going to get any revenue
other than a business license
from this?
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: I don®t know,
Councilman Snyder: On a dump operation, can you
business license procedures can we chargegfeeseinsteadeofoarbusiness
• license?
City Attorney, Mr, Williams: It would be a business license
but you can base it on a different
measure than you measure other business licenses. You can base it
on gross receipts, quantity of material dumped, flat amount per month,
et cetera, Monterey Park has a situation where they have arrived
at a rather high flat amount per month. It takes two weighing
operations and a traffic difficulty but more significant than that,
the man doesn't know what he is going to pay and you don't know.
whether you can collect what the man has to pay when you use the
scale until after he has dumped. Under the yardage.basis they know
what these trucks contain and before they dump the price is established,
collected, put in the cash register® and then they dump. The other
way they dump before you have the money, What are you going to make
them do? Go pick it up'again?
Councilman Snyder: If this was put in to protect
the City and.the public, how
.was it put in and wonet the yardage method serve.just.as well? It
seems if we are going to charge a fee per yard we don°t do it by
the truck but by measuring how much fill they put in,
Councilman Heath: I feel when we tell a man he
has to use a scale instead of
a cubic measurement we are overstepping our boundaries. If we were
trying -to protect the residents of West Covina this would be
something different but we are having customers from.all over. use
this. dump. I'don°t see how we can go in.and tell this man what way
he must measure or'collect his tariff. Since this man is-in'a
competitive field, I would be in favor of letting him determine
his own way of whether'he wants to go with cubic weight or by weight
or how he wants to go and then levy the fees on that arrangement rather
than saying he has to weigh the material.'and arrange his fees on that,
_27®
•
C. C. 6/28/65
Page Twenty -Eight
UNCLASSIFIED USE.PERMIT NO. 71, REVISION 1 - Continued
Councilman Snyder: I think our responsibility is to
see that the hole is filled.
properly and the compacted volume is what we are interested in and
I think the Engineering Department could set up away of determining
thato
City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: We made a trip to the one over
by Eagle Rock and they had a
scale and the operation was working very effectively.
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: The City Council in 1963 imposed
35 different conditions on the
use to assure its compliance with modern up-to-date standards
and the reports that went into this are voluminous. The feeling of
the staff hasn't changed.
Councilman Snyder: We are interested in that they
put so much feet of rubbish
and so much feet of dirt and that it be compacted properly. How
will the scales help you on this?
Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: To know what the volume is
there.
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: Scales won't tell you volume.
Mr. Laurence M. Pennington: In all of these operations it is
necessary for the operator to
submit to the Engineering Department a finished engineering plan.
Regardless, we -have to finish it to that standard. Certainly, if
it is.going to take one million cubic.yards or more to arrive at
that engineering plan we have to accomplish then that is what we
have to put into that facility and it doesn't make any difference
whether you are weighing it or looking at it. You are not going to
give us a release on that property until we have provided satisfactory
completion to an engineering plan.
Councilman Snyder: The second part of the application
regarding the road, I would like
to correct one statement made tonight. I don't think that was the
Planning Commission's recommendation. Nogales access was arrived
at after negotiations and that was a compromise. Quite frankly, I
don't think without that compromise you would have gotten your dump
without a referendum and I don't see how we can change that today.
The situations are the.same;.'I think we would be violating the
confidences of that compromise if we change it now.
City Manager, . Mr. Aiassa: t , t i®': tim'c this .damp was nego-
t hsd .v.4ry0: tt] ®�p ogress
• on the::. prbgosed:=oxt*nsion of Musa :.:llv�nu® ss far_:..as going"over land to
connect with Covina Pass Road.,
Councilman Heath: As was pointed out in the
Councilman ZHnyder:
West Covina. This map
but this is a temporary
staying entirely within
testimony, what we have
specified can't be accomplished.
Half of Nogales coming up from
Valley is within the City of
shows it swinging a little east o.f our border
road and nothing would prevent it from
the boundaries of West Covina.
N
•
C.,", C, 6/28/65 Page.;..Twenty-Nine
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO, 71, REVISION 1 - Continued:
Councilman.Heath: If"6nly half of that-is`in'the
City, .what..are you.going to. -do
tith the'traffic coming back from
thd`dumps weighing over 6,000
pounds?:
Councilman Snyder: The biggest objection'�at that"'time
to`.'Pa§§;and-Covina Road access was
from .-the"'Valinda"people 'and -I think` that the `°people in the City
joined .in with Valinda.to use..this'as an argument.. The main objec-
tion..was from the Valinda people and I am wondering if there is any
real valid objection to Pass and Covina as long as it is presently
a truck route
Councilman Heath: When;Azusa Avenue is complete, they
will be coming on Pass and Covina
Road, If you let them do,it now, when Azusa Avenue is completed,. they
travel -the same:route.except;they,�continue along Azusa Avenue into the
site.
Councilman Snyder Certainly in some respects it seems
to be an.unfair burden to bring the
road in from Nogales
City Manager, Mr, Aiassa This permit was negotiated by
Home Savings and Loan, Mr,
Kazarian,got the contract after the case was closed and the per-
mit approved. These items have come up and he is applying for
amendments..- Some of these.points had.a lot of validity at the
time we.discusscd this. As far as the scale, matter versus ton-
nage, I think you should .let the staff work it out with Mr. Kazarian
and see if we.can come up with a better solution. It.'s no use.trying
to resolve this tonight.
Mayor Nichols: What do you me -an it's no use trying
to resolve this tonight? The
Council can resolve anything
it wants to tpnighto
City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: The purpose of.the scales was
the Council had not determined
the method of fee, what you would charge them, and also.there would
be .a better control as to the quantity of dump going into that lim-
ited area. If there is a better way it canbe worked out, but if
you are going to abandon the scales what are you going to use to
determine your revenue or fair charge?
Councilman Snyder; Our Engineering Department
can't measure at the end of
each month .how much fill is
• in there and charge them for
that?
-29
f
C. C. 6/28/65
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NOo;'71, REVISION-1 - Continued:
Page Thirty
__controlled and
would have to, be.revi
_ty ana er, Mr Aiassa: he fiTl'cotiild b�ewed daily,
g a
You not only watch what fill is going in, you watch the covering of
that fill. A good example is the. dump at Eagle Rock.
Councilman Heath: Our revenue from the`trash_col='
lection is based.on gross sales.
We can base.. We can base.this on gross sales
and there is no bookkeeping to
it.
City Managers Mr. Aiassa:
Well, Councilman Heath,
it
isii''t
so much gross sales as
the
charge
of flat fee for collection.
You know how•,many mouses there,,are.and
how many services he gives?
Mayor Nichols:
Gentlemen, let's see if
we
can
come to some sort of an
agreement
as to what we can agree.to
dis-
agree about.
• Planning Director, Mr. Joseph:
9
The'Engineering Department -has
recommended conditions_if this
revision to the use .permit' is
approved. 'It -appears--on- page
nine of the staff report.
Councilman Heath: I don't believe we should tell
this man how to run his business.
I believe we should base our revenue on the gross sales which would
not require a scale. I believe that the total capacity of this land
fill site is expressed in cubic yards and I don't see how the use of
a scale or weight can be converted into cubic yards. In light of that
I will try a motion.
Move to approve Revision 1 of
Unclassified.Use Permit No. 71 subject to the recommended condi-
tions of the Planning Commission and that the operator be permitted
to charge fees.by cubic content if he so desires.
Councilman Snyder: The remarks prior to the motion
about fees being on a volume basis,
I think if the staff comes up with a method without using scales I
don't think we.need to limit the staff:right now on fees because we
• don't have a recommendation regarding.feeso
-3®m.
r-� L
Co C. 6/28/65
Page Thirty - A
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO, 71, REVISION 1 - Continued:
Councilman Heath: I was recomirie iding the fees 6h
'the'gross'sileso My motion -was
to adopt these conditions here Arid the-additional'condition thit"-_
the`'scales not be required and that the man be permitted to charge -
in whatever manner he sees fit and .we will regulate our fees accor-
dingly.
Councilman Snyder: If that was your motion without
all those previous statements,
I would second that but I don't -
want that in the motion.
Councilman Heath: I will withdraw my motion. You
make the motion and I will second
Councilman Snyder: Move{ that in Provision No. 13
of . Unclassified Use:: Permit
No,*: 71 that charges and fees be not necessarily determined on a
weight basis -- that charges and fees shall be determined on a vol-
ume basis and that the condition for a.scale be stricken and that
records of volume and compacted volume shall be provided to th6
City Engineering, and that it be adopted, and that this be subject -
to the conditions'of the Planning Department and all the other con-
ditions shall remain the same except for Item No. 33, that that
item shall.be stricken and that the applicant shall be allowed ac-
cess from Pass and Covina Road according to the recommendations of
the Planning Department and according to their conditions thereon;
that this approval shall include the five recommendations of the
Planning Department in their staff report of May 13, 1965.
Councilman Heath: I will second that motion.
Councilman Krieger: I have not participated in the
Council discussion and I will
abstain from voting on the motion. I would like the record to re-
flect my reasons I believe this City is entitled to an objective
and impartial vote from me as a Councilman. I believe an applicant
is entitled to objective and impartial vote from me as a Councilman.
It is unrealistic for me to take an objective and impartial position
in a matter where two years ago I was a strong advocate against this
use. I did not sit on the Council at that time, but I am as irrevo-
cably opposed to it sitting on the Council as I was not sitting on
the Council. I .interpret conflict of-: interest.•to;•be•;miich:.more than.
a pecuniary conflict of interest. I.also interpret it to be one of
intellectual conflict. I interpret it to be one of adversary con-
flict. I have each one of these in..mind when I abstain from casting
a vote on this motion..
- 30-A -
C. C. ' 6/28/65 Page Thirty -One
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. TI REVISION I'- Continued
• Mayor Nichols: I capnot support the motion
in its present form because I
do not believe it will be practical for the City of West Covina to
establish a system of fees and charges based upon.a cost statement
of compaction in an area that even the applicant says may vary in
.its total.from one million to two million cubic yards,, I think there
are too many variables on this type of a procedure that would involve
sending City employees to virtually ride policeman on the operation
in order to determine accuracy of alleged statements of compaction
and fill rates,,
Councilman Snyder: Whether you do it by weight
or volume, under Item 3 they
are required to have plans of the land fill area and to fill to a
certain profile,,
Councilman Heath: I think the motion said that
the method of determing the fee
will be determined later,,
Councilman Snyder: I didn't say anything about how
we base our fees.
City Attorney, Mr,, Williams. This condition about fees does
not relate
the City,, It relates to the fees of the operator,, fees charged by
Mayor Nichols: I am saying for myself that we
back as
City Council and attempt to establishare someoking
dtofcamlicensing a
schedule that was mentioned earlier here and I don't feel you can
get an objective schedule established based on an estimate of the
gross volume and reports and he mentioned the concept of making
periodic reports to the City and where these records would be
available,,
Councilman Heath: I am under the assumption that
the --method of arriving at
these fees is going to be taken up at a later date and they have
not been established here,, 'What we are voting on now is not on the
method of levying the fees,,
Mayor Nichols: If
City Attorney,Mr,, Williams:
iCouncilman Heath:
City Attorney, Mr, Williams:
an issue carries by two -to -
one, is that adequate for legal
purposes?
For a resolution, two -to -one
carries..An ordinance requires
three votes minimum.
Didn't we just change our laws
that an abstention is a "yes"
vote?
We changed it to the contrary.
It is.the.same as being absent,,
-31-
0
C, Co. 6/28/65
Page Thirty -Two
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT N0, 719' REVISION 'IContinued
Councilman Krieger-.
I would like the record to reflect
the comment of the City Attorney
with respect to this,
Councilman Snyder: I am only interested in seeing
than an equitable way of doing
this is accomplished and it seems to me that the scales do not do
any more for the City or the people of this City than this method
does and I don't think any evidence is given here tonight to
substantiate this,
Action on Councilman Snyder's motion-. Motion carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Snyder, Heath
Noes: Mayor Nichols
Absent' CouncilmanJett
Abstained: Councilman Krieger
Public Services Director, Mr, Fast: From the City Engineer's stand-
point our inspection would be
the same whether you measure by volume or by weight, We would
inspect from the standpoint of their proficiency of putting in
the fill, of compacting, of covering with the dirt, The only
question would be how the City 'would administer the amount that is
put in,
Councilman Heath: Would you hazard a guess to what
the weight would be for one
and a half million cubic yards?
Public Services Director, Mr, Fast: Probably 90 pounds per cubic
foot,
VARIANCE NO. 560 LOCATION: 2701 East Valley
Wilshire Oil Company Boulevard on the north -
.(General Maintenance, Inc,) east corner of Nogales
DENIED and Valley Boulevard,
Request to allow a non -conforming identification sign in Zone C-3
denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1791, Appealed by
applicant on June 10, 19650
City.Clerk, Mr'.Flotten-. (Read Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1791,)
Mayor Nichols: This is.the time.and place for the
public hearing,
"IN 'FAVOR
Mr, J'o Lawyer I represent the Wilshire Oil
12623 Imperial Highway Company. We are requesting 198
Santa Fe Springs square feet. I have discussed
this with the Planning`Department.
We are allowed 186 square feet for our sign, We are requesting 12 more
square feet t.p.,get the price panelsoup,. (Presented photograph and
explained same,) We have no sign on our building as such, We feel
Valley is an.. --industrial area rather than a downtown area and. we.can see
nogreason why.our request shouldn't be granted,
-32-
1
n
U
C�
C. C. 6/28/65 Page Thirty -Three
VARIANCE No. 560 - Continued
There being no further public testimony, 'the:hearing was closed,
Councilman --Beath: It was brought out at the"Planning
Commission that they have a
competative station in the near vicinity who has a larger sign.
Mr. J. Lawyer: There is a Standard Oil across
the street and their sign is
larger. My understanding is they are coming into West Covina but
they.would be allowed their sign for three_years and then they would
have to comply with the City of West Covina®s ordinance,
Councilman Krieger: Mr, Lawyer, are you acquainted
with the requirements for the
showing of a variance?
Mr, J, Lawyer: No"
Councilman Krieger: I would like to ask you some
specific questions from the
code because we are bound by the code the same as the people who
appear before us are bound by the code. Before any variance may
be granted it shall be shown .that there are exceptional or extra-
ordinary circumstances not applicable generally to the other
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. We are
talking about the City of West Covina,
Mr, J. Lawyer.: There is nothing on Valley
Boulevard.in West Covina,
Councilman Krieger: In your opinion this constitutes
exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances?
Mr. J. Lawyer: Yes, I believe so,
Councilman Krieger: "That such variance is necessary
for the preservation and enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in
the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in
question." Is there any property in the City.of West Covina in the
same vicinity and zone being granted this right?
Mr. J. Lawyer: Across the street is not in the
City. We came into the City
because we felt it was a better deal. to come in here but the other
three corners are in the City of Industry. We feel we are being
deprived of our right to advertise our service station at that
corner.
• . Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Since Ordinance 913 was passed
it was asked if there were
any service stations constructed and the answer was "yes", The
second question was was any of these service stations allowed signs
in excess of those permitted by code and the answer was "no". There
'have been two constructed and two reconversions of signs,
-33-
r
C. C. ' 6/28/65
VARIANCE NO,, 560 - Continued
Page Thirty -Four
Councilman Snyder: I think the sign ordinance was
not made to penalize merchants
and we feel in the long run by holding all signs to conformity that
we actually help the merchants because we help him from having
to compete in a sign war. I realize the Standard station is across
the street but I feel what you do here may set the standard in this
commercial area going in and Valley Boulevard is not necessarily in
that area an industrial areas On our side of the street we have
commercial and residential and I believe there is some residential
to the west of that. I think some how you could find a way to
put everything you need with 12 square feet less.
Councilman Heath: I think we have to look at the
fact that this man is competing
with another station or another business. His_ -customers are not
limited to the City of West Covina. They are coming from all over.
Councilman Snyder: I don't think people buy by the
size of the signo I think 12
less square feet is not going to make the Wilshire sign any less
visible.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and
carried, that Variance No. 560 be denied on the grounds that the
• neoessary showing for a variance has not been made. (Councilman
Heath voted "No".)
AMENDMENT N0. 69
City Initiated
HELD OVER
in residential zones. Approval
Resolution No. 1785. Held over
to the Planning Commission for
Consider amending sections of the
Municipal Code relating to yard
requirements, off-street parking
spaces and off-street parking
recommended by .Planning Commission
.on June 14, 1965, and referred back
clarification.
Mayor Nichols: We do have a written report from
the Planning Commission on this.
The public hearing on this matter is still open.
Councilman Snyder- If these drawings are correct
then I particularly like the
existing because I don't see what difference it makes between
having a garage next to your bedroom window or a block wall. I
think by forcing the minimum side yard distance away you are going
to create a'junk area.
Councilman Heath- I think your reasoning is good.
. I think the staff's.concern is the
fact on the existing it would be possible to put a 18-foot building
right at the property line. However, you would still have the same
thing '`With _ a :five-foot j unk . catcher there .
Councilmah:. nyder- I would like to see this a little
different. I think we should
allow garages but not living space on the property line.
-34-
1
C. Co 6/28/65
AMENDMENT NO,, 69 - Continued
Page Thirty -Five
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: That was permitted before the
change was made. You should
repeal what you made in the first place. If you adopt this the area
behind the house is partly side yard and partly back yard.
Councilman Snyder:
I think this is all right but'
I would exempt garages. I think
they are better on the lot line.
Councilman Krieger: The Council's concensus is
against this,.that we have an
inconsistency between two amendments. If we turn this down we had
better go back to our previous amendment so we have consistency
between the two. I am.not satisfied the problem created by No. 65
is solved by No. 69. I would rather see No. 65 brought back for
additional study by the Council before we take any action on this.
Mayor Nichols:
If there is no
on this matter,
hearing closed.
public testimony
I declare the
Motion'by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Snyder''and
carried, that Amendment No. 69 be held over to the meeting of
July 12, 1965 to be considered with a review of Amendment No. 65.
• (Mayor Nichols voted "No"o)
—CITY CLERK
APPLICATION OF DER RATTHESKELLER
1436 West Puente Avenue
PROTEST RECOMMENDED BY POLICE
City Clerk, Mr, Flotten: We have a letter from the
Bethany Baptist Church and a
letter from Samuel and Susan Frank registering.their.protest and
we have a recommendation from the Chief of Police recommending
protest of this matter and a petition signed by 58 people in the
area registering their protest against this application. I believe
the Council has copies of the report from the Chief of Police.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and
carried, that consistent with the Council°s past actions that a
protest be filed with the A.B.C. for the use of alcoholic beverage
At Der Rattheskeller at 1436 West Puente Avenue.
• PLANNING COMMISSION
PRECISE PLAN NO.,, 439
Artie R. Jett
Mayor Nichols. -
this matter which involves
have before us Precise Plan
Council has copy of Planning
Commission resolution.regarding
Glendora Avenue..block study,
We have a copy of a Planning
Commission.resolution.regarding
a City initiated application. We also
of Design No,, 439. If this precise plan
-35-
•
n
LJ
Co C. 6l28/65
PRECISE PLAN NO. 439 - Continued.
Page Thirty -Six
is approved it would be contrary to the City initiated application
No. 562. If we take City initiated application No. 562 it is
contrary to Precise Plan No. 439.
Councilman Snyder- Mr, Jett's application as he
proposes it is what? How many
square feet does he end up with under the present plan as compared
to the plan initiated by the City?
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph- (A map was placed on the board
and Mr. Joseph gave a brief
summary of this matter.)He would have a foot and a half more building
on the property under the City's plan.
Councilman Snyder -
He would be required to give
an easement to those people
to the south and north?
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: He would have to give his consent.
The condition of the Planning
Commission approval states that he must give' an -easement and get
an easement. This is.worked out with Mr. Williams'. assistance,
Mr. Jett is in an enviable position in that opposite Barbara the
1.2 and a half feet would be taken from his property which means he
would.have immediate access to a public street and could come right
ahead and get a building permit, -.provided he received the.necessary
easements and gave the necessary easement s.to other properties. I
did talk to Mr. Jett and he'looked at this plan and he indicated
to me orally that this plan met his requirements and he had his
draftsman with him. We have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robinson
saying they are in.favor of it. Beaver Builders.is in favor of it.
Mr. Jett has indicated he would be in favor of it. We have not
received word from anybody else as to'their feelings on it. At
the public hearing there was Ino oral objection raised or written
objection raised.
Councilman Snyder: Under the present status of
Mr. Jett's precise plan, if we
were to give him this, what do we do? We can't amend it, can we?
City Attorney, Mr, Williams- It is my understanding that this
precise plan has already been
approved.
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph:. It has been approved subject
to conditions and the conditions
were a point of contention among the City Council when this was last
before them.
• City Attorney, Mr, Williams: If Mr. Jett is agreeable I would
think it would be desirable to
hold this precise plan to come up at the,same time.as this one.
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: The block study won't come
before the Council unless it
is appealed-,
Councilman Heath: Have you read the second page
of the City initiated, the
Planning Commission Resolution .for, Variance No., 5627 It states
-36-
Co C. " 6/28/65 Page Thirty -Seven
PRECISE PLAN NO. 439 Continued
. that the approval of this variance is predicated on the grant by
each individual property owner prior to his application for a
building permit --if someone doesn't come in with a building permit
for eleven years he then is not accepting this plan or going to live
by it and therefore if one person in that whole plan drops out the
whole plan is dead.
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: No. The way the resolution is
written this is applicable to
each individual property ownero If anybody does not want to comply
with this they do not have too In exchange, however, in accordance
with the City Council directive, they must provide at least a
25-foot drive on their own property going,down to Glendora plus
meet the normal side yard setback requirements. The requirement
of each individual property owner would range between 32 and 39
feet of non -usable land..on their property and when these lots are
only 60 feet wide there is a real terrific advantage in using
this but they don't have too
Councilman Heath: Can we enforce that?
City Attorney, Mro Williams.- Enforce the 25-foot driveway
and the side yard of seven feet?
If the Ardinance-calls for a 7-foot side yard you can enforce that.
• I doubt that you can enforce a 25-foot driveway,
Councilman Heath: There is no other way to get
access to the rear.
City Attorney, Mro Williams: There are thousands and thousands
of buildings in this area where
the Fire Department can't get to the rear. I doubt you can sustain
that,
Mayor Nichols: They have to park back there.
Councilman Snyder: He could put his building in the
rear,
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I think the answer that Mr,
Joseph gave you is correct; that
the practical inducement to this justifies-the.:adoptiono You have no
assurance that it won't be built. You have another thing to contend
with; the right to access of each piece of property to the abutting
public street, You cannot deprive each one of those individuals of
the right to reach the street and in any opinion just off the cuff
I don't think you can say it has to be 25 feet wide and you have
to be able to get a fire truck to the back of the buildingo
Planning Director, Mro Joseph: Chief Wetherbee has been saying
• for seven years the Council
policy has been to have these wide driveways.
Councilman Snyder: If we can get these people to
cooperate this is the best plan
for them, Mr. Jett is coming out with a foot and a half more than
he has nowo The only problem is until the guy builds to .the south
he is going to have a narrow driveway.for people coming and going.
-37-
Co C. ' 6/28l65 Page Thirty -Eight
PRECISE PLAN NO. 439 - Continued
• Planning Director, Mr. Joseph- Mr. Johnson of Beaver Builders
stated he talked with Mro Jett
and the driveway will go in at the same time.
Councilman Heath- If these people would develop
this way it would be a great
thing but suppose they don't want too Can we enforce it? If we
can't, why put something on the books that we can't enforce or
can't use?
City Attorney, Mro Williams- You can't enforce any precise
plano It is a permit, You
can't enforce a building permito It allows a person to build a
buildingo
Mayor Nichols- Mro Jett brought a precise plan
to the City, He started routing
it and then he got to the point where he came back in and wanted
his building permit and he was refused his building permit and was
told that the Fire Department in keeping with Council policy was
requiring a 25-foot driveway and the great issue he made was that
he had conformed to all of the requirements of the ordinance and
that he had submitted his plan and this whole issue has.evolved
around that. This man was prepared to build five or six weeks ago,
• and he was told he couldn't build. You tell me this City can't
require him to do anything more than conform to the requirements of
the R-P ordinance in this area. Where does this leave our staff
and our people who told this man we wouldn't give him a building
permit?
City Attorney, Mro Williams: I don't know of any provision
that says a man has to have a
25-foot driveway or has to provide that a fire truck can get.to.:
all sides of a building that he builds. If there is such an ordinance
I have_.no..knowledge of it. If there is, I am not telling you it is
unlawful, I don't think there is one,o If there isn't and this is
just somebody's policy and you have approved a precise plan that
said Mr. Jett may build with seven -foot side yards or setbacks, he
is entitled to a building permit;
Councilman Krieger: That is just the point. We
did noto We took the precise
plan first presented and that is what we approved upon condition
he conform.to the requirements of the R-P zone and that there be no
major relocation of the building, That was what we approved.
Councilman Heath- The requirements of the R-P
zone are that you have a
minimum of a ?-foot side yard setback which he has so as he pointed
• out at the last meeting he has complied to the requirements of the
R-P zoneo
Councilman Krieger- But let's not forget the second
portion of the motion and that
was there was to be no major relocation of the building. This
becomes a. question of fact when a man pushes a building back to conform
to the front setback what happens when he pushes out to the side an
additional five feet in each direction? Is that a major relocation
or not?'
-38-
•
•
C, C, 6128165
PRECISE PLAN NO, 439 ® Continued
Councilman Snyder:
Page Thirty -Nine
I would say it was much in excess
of our intent,
City Attorney, Mr, Williams: I would be inclined to say this
would be a relocation of the
building if you moved the sides out. Here you are using a precise
plan that embraces a whole area so I think you can -- if these people
are willing, any two or more of them, are willing to go together
I think then you no longer have one lot and you can impose a precise
plan, I don't think they will contest it, I think they are gaining
by it,
Mayor Nichols: Where are we legally? We have
Precise Plan NO, 439 before us,
City Attorney, Mr, Williams: I think the Council should now
simply make clear what it meant
by the conditions that were expressed there and that.you.consider
that this is a major relocation,
Mayor Nichols: Move that in the opinion of the
Council the plan presented by
Mr, Jett (Precise Plan of Design No, 439) is considered by the
Council to be a major relocation and the Council would look with
favor on a precise plan as indicated on the block study under
Variance NO, 562,
Councilman Krieger; If the Council were to adopt
a motion construing the
building application of Mr. Jett's to involve a major relocation in
building and if that motion was to pass, that means the only thing
he could do would be to come back here with another precise.plan or
his original one unless in the meantime we..went ahead and adopted
.this Variance 562?
City Attorney, Mr, Williams: If the variance isn't appealed
it is in effect,
Councilman Krieger: If he then brought in a building
plan.that.conformed to this
Variance No, 562 he could then go ahead?
City Attorney, Mr, Williams: Yes,
Councilman Krieger: More importantly,.I_am.concerned
with the entire development
along Glendora Avenue, Applying your interpretation tonight to not
somebody in the middle because it is unrealistic.to.me that that is
where you are going to get your static, but what about these_ people
that have to give up a portion.for a driveway? Where do we go if
those people are the ones that come in? What traffic flow do you have
in that kind,of a situation? .
Mayor Nichols: Very poor,
Councilman. Krieger: If there was a way to adopt and
enforce.this block study, this
is a solution not to an individual applicant's problem but to a
number of problems that are going to arise along Glendora, Avenue,
-39-
1
•
n
�J
Co C. 6/28/65 Page Forty
PRECISE PLAN NO,, 439 - Continued
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I think it is a wonderful
solution if you can enforce it.
The only way I know is where.you can enforce it is by urban renewal.
Councilman Krieger; I would be disposed to adopt a
motion which states that there
has been a major relocation and just leave that precise plan adopted
by the Planning Commission, the block study, alone and not call it
up.
Mayor Nichols:
I don't think that plan is
workable. My motion dies for
lack of a second.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and
carried, that the interpretation of the Council is that in Precise
Plan of Design No. 439 there was a relocation of the building and
therefore the precise plan is not valid. (Councilman Heath voted
OtNo"', )
Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: If Mr. Jett came in with a
building plan that conformed
to his original precise plan or if he came in with a plan conforming
to the block study, we could issue a building permit on either one?
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I think so.
Councilman Krieger: If the other people conform to
the precise plan adopted for
the whole block they need not come in withanyprecise plan as long
as they conform with that?
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: That's right because that is a
precise plan.
Planning Diiector, Mr., Joseph: If he comes in with a.precise
plan.that conforms to the original
precise plan with side yards of 12 feet and a front yard of 15 feet
plus all the other conditions imposed by the City Council we would
issue a building permit. If he chose instead to take the City
initiated precise plan and build withone setback of 12 1/2 feet
and subject to all the conditions imposed'by the Planning Commission
in their variance and precise plan approval of June 16th, we would
issue a building permit on that building, too. If Mr. Jett wanted
to come in tomorrow he could get a..building"permit on his first
plan. If he wanted to build the second plan, the 20-day waiting
period expires a week from today.
Councilman Snyder: If" we don't have this
• requirement for width of drive-
ways and I think this is in the interest of the public safety, we,
should include this by amending the ordinance.
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I find it is in the ordinance.
The precise plan of design
shall specify and include the location, size, height,'and type of
all structures including signs, walks and fences. The location and
dimension of all yards and setbacks and all spaces between structures.
The location9. dimeraions, and method of improvement of all driveways,
parking.areas9 walkways and means of access, -ingress and egress. The
location and dimensions of all be dedicated to the public or public
ut it t,i:es .
-40-
•
C. C. 6/28/6S
PRECISE PLAN NO,, 439 - Continued
Councilman Krieger:
i
City Attorney, Mr,, Williams:
Councilman Snyder:
Page Forty -One
It would seem to me we have.the
tool of enforcement in the
ordinance.
Yes, I think it is here.
Does "surround" mean all four
sides?
City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I think so. As long as we
have the ordinance we can enforce
it.
Councilman Snyder: Move that the Planning Commission
initiate a study of this
provision of the ordinance regarding where it can be used with
special regard to surrounding property and ordinary city lots.
Mayor Nichols:
SIDEWALKS IN HILLSIDE AREAS
The motion dies for lack of a
second.
Councilman Heath: There is a tract on the side of
a hill. (Drew sketch on board
and explained same.) It says in our hillside ordinance on these
lots where you are going to have grading you are permitted to use
one-half of the 10-foot right-of-way as part of your lot. You can
bring your slope to one-half of the 10-foot right-of-way which leaves
five feet to the face of the curb.' Then we say in this five feet
there must be a sidewalk. Now, we also state there must be light
standards and it must come on the sidewalk area. On top of that we
say there must be street trees in this five-foot area and.we have to
have a hole big enough for a tree. You will find that the well for
the street tree takes up most of the five feet. If the dirt comes
from the slope onto the sidewalk it is the responsibility of the
City to keep that clean. On top of that you usually have public
utilities underground. I have found one more thing coming up and
that is the children are using these sidewalks for skate boards and
bike riding. The County will not permit sidewalks to be adjacent
to the curb. The question comes up.on hillside areas is it sensible
to request a five-foot sidewalk, In most of our areas they walk in
the streets.
Mayor Nichols: We are trying to get them off the
streets.
Councilman Krieger: I drive every day up a street
that is called Hollenbeck and
there is no sidewalk on that hill going up that street and every day
I am dodging kids on that hill -- not just kids walking but kids on
skate boards and kids on bikes. I would just w-soon they have the
opportunity at least to try it on a sidewalk as to take the calculated
risk of having no place else to do it except in the street. That is
a problem in every hillside piece. of property I know of. It may not
be.the best solution but.unless there is another one, what are we
going to do?
-41-
C. C, ' 6f28/65
SIDEWALKS IN HILLSIDE AREAS - Continued
Page Forty -Two
• Mayor Nichols: 'I would rather ease off on tree
requirements than I would on
sidewalk requirements up in those areas.
Public Services Director, Mr, Fast: We will try to put the light
fixtures back on the slope
instead of out on the edge of the sidewalk,
Mayor Nichols: You could do the same with the
trees,
Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: The Public Services Division
talked about.this very thing
and. we talked about slipping the fire hydrants and trees back on the
.slope and"your street lights back on the slope. Where we can we
will try to put them on the other side of the street,
Councilman Krieger; Wherever we have an option, I
think common sense would dictate
that the sidewalk should go on the other side of the street but if
we are faced with a situation where we have the same problem on
both sides of the street it is a question of either putting in a
walk and taking your chances with a walk or putting in none and
taking your chances with the street and I would just as soon give
the kids at least that added advantage of having a sidewalk,
POLICE COMMENDATION
Councilman Snyder: We have a recommendation from
Allen Sill to commend Officer
Evans who disarmed that boy over in the vacant lot. I think this
was an exceptional act.and he should be.commended by a resolution
from the Council.
Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and
carried, that Officer Evans be.given a resolution of commendation for
his action in this matter,
BASE STUDY
Councilman.Snyder: We .discussed the base study during
budget sessions and I believe that
the Planning Department and the Chamber of Commerce now have specific
proposals to present to us and I would like that to be on the agenda
.for the next meeting,
�. City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: All right,
-4 2 --
Co Ca 6/28/65
• WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
0
LETTER FROM PACIFIC INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY SUBMITTING RECOMMENDATION RE
CLAIM BY ROY STEPHEN ROSE (MINOR) IN
RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY COUNCIL '
Page Forty -Three
City Clerk, Mr, Flotten: Council will recall a week or
so ago we got a'claim from -Roy
Stephen Rose, The Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company would like
us to reject the claim and refer it to them,.
Councilman:Krieger: I think they may be wrong because
as`I remember what the City
Attorney told us was they were asking us to file the claim late and
inasmuch as it involved a minor they could compel the City to accept
a late claim, I don't think the claim should be on the denial of
their right to file a late claim but the denial of the claim itself,
City Manager, Mr, Aiassao That is what we want.
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and
carried, that the claim of Roy Stephen Rose be denied and referred
to the insurance carrier,
CLAIM FILED BY CAROL J. SPARKS
City Clerk, Mr, Flotten; There was a claim filed by
Carol J. Sparks in December
which we denied and referred to the insurance company for their
handling, Now we have a summons in this case to the District Court
for the Southern District of California, --
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and
carried, that this matter be referred to the insurance carrier,
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
City Clerk, Mr, Flotten: The Council has been requested
to annex some land at Nogales
and Valley Boulevard,
Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and
carried, that the City staff,be instructed to start annexation
procedures of Southerly Annexation. District No, 190,
.MAYOR'S REPORTS
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Mayor Nichols; I have three appointments to
make speaking on behalf of
the City Council, On the appointment to the Recreation and Parks
Commission for a three-year term.we appoint Mrs, Frank Plesko,
-43-
C. C. 6/28165 Page.Forty-Four
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - Continued
We have two vacancies for
four-year terms on the Planning Commission. The appointees to
those positions are Mr. John Adams and Mr. Vernon Mottinger.
Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and
carried, that the Council confirm the appointments of the Mayor.
DEMANDS
Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, to
approve demands totaling $217,493.49 as listed on demand sheets..payroll
B2009 C460 through C463. This total includes fund transfers of
$65,044.59 and funds including time deposits of $95,000.00. Motion
passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor,Nichols
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Jett
There being no.further business, Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded
• by Councilman Krieger, and carried, that this meeting be adjourned
to Tuesday, July 6, 1965 at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was adjourned
at 1:15 A.M.
ATTEST:
•
CITY CLERK
APPROVED
MAYOR
-44-