Loading...
12-27-1965 - Regular Meeting - Minutesi -v MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA9 CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 2% 1965 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Nichols at 7s30 P,M, in the West Covina City Hall, Councilman Jett led the Pledge of Allegiance, The invocation was given by the Rev. T. Robert Barran of Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church, ROLL CALL Presents Mayor Nichols, Councilmen Jett, Snyaer, Heath Others Present- Mr. George Massa, City Manager Mr. Robert Flatten, City Clerk (to 7- 35 P.M,) Mr. Harry C. Williama, City Attorney (from 7s4O P.M,) f.. Mr. Herman R, Fasts Public Services Director Mro Harold Josephs Planning Director Absents Councilman Krieger Mr, Robert Flatten$ City Clerk 6 Admin, Assistant. (from 705 P,M,) C M tLERK°S REPORTS (Mr. Flatten left the chambers at 70-35 P.M.) APPROVE FORMAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX DELINQUENT LAND PARCEL LIST 88A APPROVED LOCATION; Northerly 10 feet of Parcel 341 for parkway on south side of Badillo Street between Sunset and -Orange; northeasterly 30 feet of Parcel 172 for widening of Yarnell just east of Willow Avenue. Review Engineer's report and authorize execution of formal agreement. Continued from Council meeting on December 13, 1965. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to approve the formal agreement to purchase the tax delinquent land, Parcel List 68A9 for the sum of one dollar per parcel, and authori:Ze the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement to buy, RESOLUTION NO, 3289 The City Manager presented - ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ' ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOFPO `Zone Variance No, 166) Mayor Nichols- Hearing no objections,'we will waive further reading"of the body of the rtsolutiono Ca C, 12/27/65 RESOLUTION N0, 3289 - Continued Page Two • Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath that said resolution be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger Said resolution was given No, 3289, RESOLUTION N0, 3290 ADOPTED Tract 14575 - Wilson Mayor Nichols. - The City Manager presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF" (Grant deed, Lot 1, Tract No, 14575, Wilson) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution, Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said resolution be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent.- Councilman Krieger Said resolution was given No, 3290, RESOLUTION NO, 3291 ADOPTED Glendora and Sunset Avenues Mayor Nichols: The City Manager presented. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY TO PERMIT THE USE OF CERTAIN GASOLINE TAX MONEY ALLOCATED AS COUNTY AID TOWARD THE IMPROVEMENT OF GLENDORA AVENUE AND SUNSET AVENUE AS SHOWN ON PLANS OF PROJECTS SP-6508 AND SP6535" Hearing no objections, w.e will waive further reading of the body of the resolution, Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said resolution be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger. Said resolution was given No, 3291, -2- C, C, 12/27/65 Page Three 'CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued • RESOLUTION NO, 3292 The City Manager presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Vacate portion of OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA Service Avenue DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF SERVICE AVENUE 60 FEET WIDE SUBJECT TO RESERVATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND EASEMENTS" Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution, (Mr, Williams entered the chambers at 7:40 P,M,) Councilman Heath: This is a declaration to vacate a portion of property where Service Avenue used to project across and through the Walnut Creek Wash, We changed the location of Service Avenue.and there is now a parcel of land left which is not being used, This was dedicated about 1960 possibly and. presumably before that area was developed, In this resolution we are intending to vacate this portion of it, What do we do, quit claim it and put it up for grabs or don't we usually give the adjacent property owner the right to buy it? City Attorney, Mr, Williams: We vacate, We don't convey, We merely abandon the easement the City has for street purposes, The underlying title is in somebody's name, If we are curious, we can find out by getting a title report. It really is of no particular concern to us who gets it, We simply declare that it is not necessary for street purposes. If there is a gas pipe or electric line in it we may reserve an easement for whatever purpose we need the easement for so the Council is obliged to make two decisions, First, whether or not the property is needed for street and highway purposes; second, whether or not the public welfare, convenience and necessity requires the reservation of any easements, Other than that, we don't convey, The only exception to that is where we exchange with an owner a portion of property that would go to him for another portion of property where we wish to move a street and he gives it to us. In that case we can quit claim it, This is not the case here, (Councilman Snyder left the chambers for a few minutes,) City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: The date of hearing on this will be January 24, 1966, Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, that said resolution be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows: . Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilmen Snyder, Krieger Said resolution was given No, 3292, -3- • C. C, 12/27/65 CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued. TRACT NO, 23292 EXTEND TIME TO Home Savings HELD OVER Mayor Nichols: FILE FINAL MAP 8 Loan Assoc, LOCATION: Page Four Easterly of Pass and Covina Road at Amar Road, Extend time to file final.map of Tract No, 23292 for a period of one year to February 8, 19.6% The staff recommends to us that we hold this matter over to the first meeting in January for a staff report. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that this matter be held over to the meeting of January 10, 1966, and that the staff bring back a report and recommendation to the Council, (Councilman Snyder re-entered the chambers,) CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION Zone Change 358 - Calprop The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES" (ZC 358, Calprop Investments, Inc,) Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance,` Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that said ordinance be introduced, ORDINANCE NO, 953 ADOPTED Zone Change 341 - Abbey Rents The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES" (ZC 341, Abbey Rents) Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to waive further reading of.the body of the ordinance. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger Abstained: Mayor Nichols Said ordinance was given No, 953, -4- • • C, Co 12/27/65 CITY ATTORNEY - Continued ORDINANCE N0, 954 ADOPTED Zone Change 347 Carlsen & Herold Page Five The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES TO ZONE R-P" (ZC 347, Carlsen and Herold) Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance,, Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, that said ordinance be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger Said ordinance was given No, 954,, ORDINANCE HELD OVER Business licenses Mayor Nichols: The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING SECTION 6236 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SPECIFYING CERTAIN BUSINESSES WHICH REQUIRE A PERMIT BEFORE A BUSINESS LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED" The City Manager requests that this be held over for a study session. Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that this matter be held over to a Council study session, RESOLUTION N0, 3293 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Variance 571 - Hotchkiss OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA GRANT- ING A SIGN VARIANCE" (V 571% Hotchkiss) Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: Councilman Snyder Absent: Councilman Krieger Said resolution was given No, 3293, -5- • • • C. Co 12/27/65 Page Six CITY ATTORNEY - Continued APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY CITY CLERK Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that Mr. Aiassa be appointed the temporary City Clerk for the Council meeting of December 27, 1965. RESOLUTION The City Attorney presented; DENIED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Variance 569(1) - Sugar OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DENYING A VARIANCE" (V 569(1), Sugar) Councilman Jett: Since the last meeting where I stated I would not object to this use in this particular area for this property but I had questions and references to the setbacks and some of those items contained in the variance,, As a result of that, there was no one here to give us any testimony for or against and I voted against this,, However, since that time I have had occasion to look at the Minutes of the Council meeting while I was absent and in those Minutes the statements that it was a pretty much unanimous opinion that this use would be acceptable for this area. One reason it was denied was because of the R-3 zoning,, Since last meeting I have made it a point to look at this property and I've read the Minutes of the Council meeting and the Planning Commission and the report of the Planning Department,, It seems it is the unanimous opinion of the Planning Commission that this was a good use for the property As a result of that, I would be in favor of the variance allow- ing the use to go on this property,, Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution,, Motion,by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, that said resolution be adopted,, Motion failed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilman Snyder Noes: Councilmen Jett, Heath, Mayor Nichols Absent: Councilman Krieger Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, that the City Attorney be instructed to bring in a resolution granting Variance 569, Amendment No,, 1,, Councilman Snyder: I would suggest this go back to the Planning Commission for conditions in light of the statement that Mr. Jett made that new evidence in effect has been taken, that he had gone and looked at the property,, Councilman Jett: I don't think it is new evidence. I had the opportunity to review the Minutes covering this matter,, Councilman Heath: The first time the Planning Com- mission approved the variance, were there conditions attached to it at that time? me • 16 C, C, 12/27/65 Page Seven RESOLUTION (VARIANCE 569(l), SUGAR) Continued Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Councilman Heath: Councilman Snyder: Yes, Could we use those conditions? You are attempting to remember conditions without reviewing them, Councilman Heath: I have been very close to this and as you recall I have made a number of,speeches to the Council on the merits of this case, I feel I am well acquainted with those conditions. I also would like tosay that I sat through both hearings at the Planning Commission as the Council representative, I will restate my motion, Move that the City Attorney be instructed to bring in a resolution approving Variance No, 569, Amendment No, 1, subject to the conditions as specified in the original hearing by the Planning Commission, Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: The Planning Commission did not consider the use in an R-A and C-1 zone, Are you suggesting that the use be permitted in an R-A and C-1 zone which is what Amendment No, 1 tried to cover? Councilman Jett: This is my understanding, This is what I am in favor of, Councilman Heath; This Amendment No, 1 in addition to the setbacks included the permission to use a convalescent home in an R-A zone and a C-1 zone and that should be included in the resolution, Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: City Attorney, Mr, Williams: Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: That is per City Planning Commission Resolution No, 1830, That contains the conditions, Were there any recommended con- ditions as to use? No, City Attorney, Mr, Williams: Then these would be the only conditions that would be implied but the variance would include the variance as to use? Councilman Heath: That is right. However, it should not include a convalescent home in a R-3 zone, It should be in the R-A and C-1 zone, Councilman Jett: I will second the motion, Councilman Snyder: Without regard to the merits of this application, this is not the way to in effect zone property, I still think this should wait until our ordinances can be rewritten to include this type of building or use by another application. I will say that it is not so much that I am against this application per se but this is just not the way to do it and it opens up another precedent for doing it in other sections of the City and another excuse for zoning in this manner and I don't think this is the right approach. I feel this should be placed by special use permit instead of by variance, -7- • 0 C . .0 . 12/27/65 RESOLUTION (VARIANCE 569(1), SUGAR) - Continued Page Eight City Attorney, Mr. Williams: Don't you have to answer a question that comes before you as a judicial body under the laws as they exist rather than the laws as you think they ought to be? Councilman Snyder: That is true and that is what I am doing. In effect, I am saying they don't make a strong enough variance here for this type of use. I hope that you will all look at these conditions before this resolution comes back. Action on Councilman Heath's motion Snyder voted "No") RESOLUTION NO. 3295 ADOPTED County Fire Protection Annexation 190 Mayor Nichols: Motion carried. (Councilman The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DESCRIBING A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DIST- RICT WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AND DECLARING THE SAME WITH- DRAWN FROM SAID DISTRICT" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman.Heath, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger Said resolution was given No.'3295 C . C , 12/27/65 RESOLUTION.NO'' 32.96 ADOPTED fTaxation Districts 1966-67 Mayor Nichols: Page Nine The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE,CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DESIG- NATING TAXATION DIST4ICTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1966- ,,67" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said resolution be adopted. _Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger Said resolution was given No. 3296 SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS PROJECT MP-6526-1, PALM VIEW PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Puente and Lark Ellen Avenues. Bids received in the office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on December 15, 1965. The bids received are as follows: JOHN W. TIEDEMANN CO. 10% bid bond $ 9,461.51 LAIRD PAVING COMPANY 10% bid bond 9,537.54 SULLY -MILLER CONTRACTING CO. 10% bid bond 9,694.80 JASPER N. HALEY 10% bid bond 10,193.00 GRIFFITH COMPANY 10% bid bond 10,409.86 E. C. CONSTRUCTXON CO. 10% bid bond 10,534.85 Public Services Director,Mr. Fast: This is a unit price contract and we will measure the quanti- ties on the job as they are incorporated into the work and we will pay on the unit price listed. The total amount of the contract will be determined at the time the job is complete. Motion by Councilman. Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, to accept the low bid of Mr. John W. Tiedemann and award the contract for Project MP-6526-1 to John W. Tiedemann Company on the basis of their low bid items. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger N Cv Co 12/27/65 BIDS Continued • PROJECT SP-6513 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Page Ten LOCATION: Pacific Avenue, Cameron to Ardilla Avenue, Bids received in the office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on December 22, 1965, The bids received are as follows: JASPER N, HALEY 10% bid bond $41,526,13 R, W, RICHTER CONSTRUCTION 10% bid bond 449280,35 REX W, MURPHY , 10% bid bond 449838,00 JOHN W, TIEDEMANN CO, 10% bid bond 459986,52 SULLYm-MILLER CONTRACTING CO, 10% bid bond 479281,75 LAIRD PAVING COMPANY 10% bid bond 489762,12 COXCO, INC, 10% bid bond 491)641,30 Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, that the contract for City Project SP-6513 be awarded to Jasper N. Haley on the basis of his low bid item for a total estimated amount of $41,526,13. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger Mayor Nichols: The amount of $28,500 that is . available for this project has been contributed by the Highway funds for Highway Through Cities and this was negotiated by the City Manager with the County. I think the significance of this is that these funds of $28,500 had not been previously available or allocated for this City and in fact were not scheduled to come to the City so that these funds come strictly through the efforts of the City Manager and the staff in extra negotiations with the County Road officials, HEARINGS VARIANCE NO, 578 LOCATION: 217 Sunset between Robert Mayer Garvey and Workman, HELD OVER Request to permit a non -conforming sigr_ in Zone R-4 for a one-year period denied by Planning Commission Resolution No, 1861, Called up by Council on December 13, 1965, City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: The notice of this public hearing appeared in the West Covina Tribune on December 16, 1965 and 58 notices were mailed to people in the area, (Read Planning Commission Resolution No, 1861,) • Mayor Nichols: This is the time and place for the public hearing, Mr, Dale Ingram I am representing Mayer Construction 10316 Asher Street Company, 8020 East Second Street, El Monte El Monte, We plead hardship because of your present ordinances. Of primary concern to the Commission was the fear of setting precedent by the granting of this variance. I would suggest to the Council that the matter of setting precedent is not a new matter to this City. You have had to face up to this decision many times in the past, _10- C,, C,, 12/27/65 VARIANCE N0 578 - Continued Page Eleven • The factors that make this property good for apartments in that it is 450 feet from the freeway and well landscaped are the very things that make it impossible to get any benefit at all from the legal regular advertising value of legal signs on this property,, The property has irregular topography, Sunset .comes under the freeway and slopes upward toward the subject property,, It is about on the level of the subject property when directly in front of the property,, All other apartments in the general area front on the frontage road adjoining the frontage road at a distance of approximately 150 feet and have signs readily available and readable from the freeway. Because of distance, topography, and freeway landscaping, the permanent conforming sign for the subject property will probably never be visible from the freeway,, The basic problem here is that the property on the forntage road is allowed 20 square feet of sign,, Here we sit with approximately 185 lineal feet of building facing the freeway with no permanent sign allowed because it is technically the side of the building,, We are being deprived of the right to advertise the business being constructed on the premises. It is our contention that neither the allowable front sign or this temporary sign will be of much value to freeway traffic or south on Sunset or north, north of the freeway. The true value of the sign is the commercial area south of the freeway where people are walking, shopping, driving slowly,, Under the temporary sign section of the ordinance we are being penalized because we are developing 120 apartments instead of five houses,, In our present zone or if we were in an R-1 zone regardless of freeway locations we would be allowed two signs of 80 square feet for a period of one year if we built five houses,, We believe the renting of 120 apartments is equally as difficult as the selling of five houses,, We believe that the granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare,, The sign can have no effect on the properties to the north, east, or west of the property, and certainly will not materially affect the property south of the freeway as much as does the freeway itself,, We are very willing to accept and comply with the two recommendations of the staff at the end of their report,, We ask that you grant us a variance to allow the existing 75 square foot sign on the roof of the building as it is located now subject to the conditions of the staff,, In addition, we would be willing to agree to a one-year time limit or until all units are occupied, whichever comes sooner. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have,, Mr,, Ron Leff I represent the owners of another 5938 A1deo large unit who also received a Encino notice of non-compliance with the City ordinance,, I feel my interest basically is the way this case goes can possibly set a precedent for our property and other properties,, I have actual statistics that I can go by. The piece of property that I represent is the Sunset Terrace which is a few blocks down We have 140 units I have weekly rental records and actual statistics of what has taken place on our property which is a brand new piece of property and since we have been getting weekly rental reports we request the managers to fill in the source of people looking for apartments,, We have had 121 people that have come in because of the sign,, We have had 21 people come in because of referrals, and we have had 38 people come in from -11- C,, C,, 12/27/65 VARIANCE NO. 578 - Continued Page Twelve • newspaper advertising,, We have been quite aggressive in all three areas of trying to get new tenants. The sign by far has been our most successful method,, For some reason, the San Gabriel papers do not give us the response. I think it would behoove the City of West Covina to express a little progressive thinking along the lines of getting out and bringing in new citizens into the community,, I don't think any one property is particularly unique,, I think it is a community problem,, .There being no further public testimony, the public portion of the "hearing was closed,, Councilman Snyder- What is the City regulation regarding signs for housing tracts as stated by Mr,, Ingram? Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph- One unlighted double faced sign or two unlighted single face signs, 80 square feet,, (Read code section re this matter,,) Councilman Heath: What is the size of the sign up at Sunset Terrace? Mr. Ron Leff: Approximately 80 square feet per face. There are two signs back to back,, This was put up by the original builder.,,.. . Councilman Heath: Mr,, Ron Leff: Councilman Heath: Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: Councilman Heath: Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: Councilman Heath. - Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph. - Councilman Heath: How long has that sign been there? I don't know,, About a year and a half, Mr,, Joseph? The property has changed hands,, It has been there at least a year,, Mr,, Joseph, if there is a free standing sign on an R-4, what square footage would be permitted? You cannot have a free standing sign on R-4,, All signs must be attached to the building,, Did the law permit it when this apartment went in? No, it did not,, Do you remember how much square feet there were on the sign advertising the Towne House apartments? Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: No, I do not. However, let me state one further thing. In addition to lots or houses offered for sale, there is another provision in the code for developments under construction,, (Read section of ordinance pertaining to this matter,,) The Towne House sign may fall in the jurisdiction of development under construction,, -12- • • Co C, 12127f65 "VARIANCE NO,, 578 - Continued Mayor Nichols: Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Mayor Nichols: Page. Thirteen What are these people being cited for? The building is still under construction,, That is a sign that is not denoted according to the code. Does it limit the content in that section of the sign to specific items? Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: Yes, it does,, (Read said section,,) Councilman Jett: In building an office building you are permitted a sign advertising office space for rent. What size sign are they permitted? Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: exceed a total of 40 square feet,, Councilman Jett: Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: Councilman Jett: (Read section of ordinance re this matter,,)' It is not to How big was the Schlanger sign? It was over 200 feet,, What about the signs advertising Home Savings and Loan property? Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: They could have had 75 square feet per building frontage based on the frontage along the street. Because they chose to put it catty -corner having frontage on both streets, the attorney ruled they could have double the face or what would have been allowable if they had two signs. They have 150 square feet per face on those signs because there are two street frontages,, Councilman Jett: Here is a building still under construction,, What they are attempting to do is attract people in there to rent. I don't see why we should put a hardship on these people when we allow some building offices or something of that nature signage,, We don't want these people to pass West Covina and not stop and live here. I think it would be reasonable to grant these people time to leave this sign up,, Councilman Snyder: If their rentals don't go fast enough .it would be easy to turn the sign around and put it on the north side of the building so the cars coming north can see it, too. There are other specific signs in the City where this same thing will be asked for,, There are two apartments going up to the west of Orange and this is no grounds for a variance. I think it is a shame they have such a good looking building to spoil it with the one type of sign they want to put up on here,, I would not object to reconsideration of these provisions for apartments along the same line as allowed for tracts,.perhaps a change in the ordinance,, Councilman Heath: I called this matter up because I felt the qualifications of a variance were met in this location and I don't see why this was denied in light of all of the previous signs that have been granted,, We have here testimony tonight that the Sunset Terrace apartments have a sign -13-` • 0 0 CC. 12/27/65 'VARIANCE.NO. 578 - Continued larger than this and has construction signs on th Azusa Avenue. There wer throughout the City. Th the Alscot and Schlanger foot sign permitted for on San Bernardino Road. we have Coldwell Banker can't see how we can gra deny this man a temporar variance have been met. Councilman Jett: Page Fbiirteen been there for over a year. There were e apartments between Workman and Rowland off of e construction signs for many subdivisions ere have been free-standing signs permitted on properties; there was a 300 and some square the convalescent home during construction At the present time at Glendora and Cameron signs advertising the coming of a market. I nt these other people these approvals and then y sign. I feel all the qualifications for a I would agree with that. Mayor Nichols: I have stated many times my feelings about our sign ordinance, that it is too restrictive, that it is difficult to enforce, and I think this evening is another classic example where you have shown you can build five houses on a street and put up a sign and you can't put up a sign on 120 units. We have seen consistant conflicts in our sign ordinance but that sign ordinance still exists. I was on this Council when these gentlemen applied for this use on this property. They knew how the property lay geographically. They knew where the freeway was. There are no conditions that have developed that they did not have a thorough knowledge of before they ever asked for a building permit for this structure. If they did not know our sign ordinance in this City it was their responsibility, not this Councils. Although I object to this sign ordinance, until I can get it changed, and I am going to try, I cannot concur that a cause for a variance under this ordinance has been shown. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, that Variance No. 578 be granted for a period of one year. Tie vote as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Heath; Noes: Councilman Snyder, Mayor Nichols. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that the Planning Commission be directed to study a revision of the sign ordinance with regard to signs for apartments along the lines of those allowed for tracts and office buildings. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that this matter be over to the meeting of January 10, 1966. ZONE CHANGE NO, 359 LOCATION: 2033 West Garvey between Charles Evans Sunkist and Orange. APPROVED Request to reclassify form R-A to C-1 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No,, 1858. City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: Notice of this public hearing was published in the West Covina Tribune on December 16, 1965, and 18 notices were mailed to property owners in the area. (Read Planning Commission Resolution No. 1858.) Mayor Nichols: This is the time and place for the public hearing. C, C, 12/27/65 Page Fifteen ZONE CHANGE NO, 359 - Continued SThere being no public testimony, the public portion of the hearing was closed, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that Zone Change No, 359 be approved from R-A to C-1, VARIANCE N0, 577 LOCATION: 1014 West Garvey at the Eugene Wood intersection of Garvey HELD OVER and California Avenues, Request to allow non -conforming identification signs (2) in Zone C-2 .approved by Planning Commission Resolution No, 1852, Called up by Council on November 29, 1965, City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: Notice of this public hearing appeared in the West Covina Tribune on December 16,1965, and eight notices were mailed to property owners in the area, (Read Planning Commission Resolution No, 1825,) Mayor Nichols: This is the time and place for the public hearing, Mr, Phil Wax To qualify for a variance there 1014 West Garvey are four points you have to prove, West Covina My sign is zoned in the proper zone so I am not in violation -of the General Plan, The sign is not detrimental to my neighbors a -rid not blocking other signs because it is parallel to the face of the building, Comparable uses in the same vicinity and zone have signs larger than the present code permits because they were there before present ordinances went into effect. More than 900 of the Plaza stores and banks are non conforming in their.signs, There are several recent variances granted by the City, Reliable Savings and Loan, Mitzi's, Wallich's Music City, Citrus National Bank, Farmers Insurance, and the new Orange Julius sign, My sign is less than eight feet in violation, I believe I have the grounds for a variance, that I have met the required showing for a variance and now ask the same consideration given to others. I asked the Planning Commission for interpretation as to why the can would be counted when it creates such a problem for maintenance to paint the building instead, There is nothing in our ordinance that says you cannot paint the border. The paint is a job for us to keep up. Our building is recessed about 20 feet from the other buildings. This sign will be visible from a distance only. To maintain my identification I have to have a sign that can be legible, I am already making the sign smaller than my present sign, Other businesses in the area have received variances, To deny me this • sign I think would be unfair. There being no further public testimony, the public portion of the hearing was closed, Councilman Heath: I called this matter up and the reason I called it before the Council is that I have no qualms with the application for this new sign but we must not overlook the fact that there is another sign on the front of this building making two signs and the two signs are going to remain. To my knowledge, there is not another store along =15= C, C, 12/27/65 VARIANCE NO, 577 - Continued Page Sikteen • there which has two signs. I feel that this sign being requested is justified but I believe the other sign "Lee's" which gives two signs to the building front should be removed. If we permit two signs on this building we are not granting a variance; we are setting a precedent for two signs all the way down the whole line of the Plaza, Mayor Nichols: There are two signs now, aren't there? Councilman Heath: yes. Mayor Nichols: How could you be setting a precedent if there are already two signs? Councilman Heath: Whenever you make a new application you always are required to bring your standards within the law at that time, Councilman Snyder: In view of the variances along here and the arguments used for those variances, this man is in effect asking for a reduction in the present signage, I don't see how we can single this one out for denial where we have granted gross violations of the sign ordinance in this area, Councilman Jett: Councilman Snyder, you haven't given any reasons for granting a variance. Councilman Snyder: The applicant gave the reasons, Mr, Jett, Councilman Jett: His reasons are that his business is located in the proper zone, Is this a requirement for approval of a.variance? If it is, I think that every business.in the City.that comes.in meets that requirement. He states that it is not detrimental to the other businesses that surround him. I can't see where it would be detrimental but I don't see how that would be a qualification for meeting the requirements of a variance. Another reason he gave was there are other businesses in the area that have signs that do not meet the code and the reason being they were put in there prior to the sign ordinance going into effect. To me that is not grounds for a variance, He says several variances have been approved throughout the City. I am sure this is true, This is not something I have argued against in the past but never have I ever heard a member on this Council say that was grounds for the approval of a variance other than that I felt it should be, I am sure that when Florsheim Shoe Company came into West Covina and Mr, Wax when he established his business in the City of West Covina I am sure he was very much aware of our sign ordinance and knew the requirements • of the sign ordinance, .._He is asking for two signs, Mr, Phil Wax: There isn't anything that I have requested that is two signs, Councilman Jett: To me I just don't see any argument that has been put up here that has proved the requirements of a variance, If these are the requirements for a variance I want the record to specifically show that these are the requirements because I am sure that in a very short time this will be coming back before us and if these are the requirements -16- • s Co C. 12/27/65 VARIANCE NO. 577 - Continued Page Seventeen I think everyone who comes in asking for an approval of a sign should be able to get it based on these requirements, Councilman Snyder: It seems odd that all at once you are asking for strict interpre- tation of the variance application when just tonight you voted for another variance where you didn't go over it point by point or even prove any closeness at all to approving a variance,, I am wondering if this isn't personal prejudice rather than a strict interpretation of the law,, . There again the grounds for a variance here are very strongly proven, it would seem to me,, A sign just next to him was granted the other night which was not called up, a free standing roof sign on a similar type of retail outlet. If that makes sense to allow a free standing roof sign and not allow this reduction in sign here, it has to be for other than a strict interpretation of the variance law,, Councilman Heath; Councilman Snyder: Councilman Heath, I think we should out of it and you your own opinion,, keep personalities are entitled to I merely made an observation. There was a sign granted on the same night a few doors down from this to be put on the roof,, The business that was in that business before was given a sign of a certain size,, The person who moved into that building just recently requested a sign to go on the same pylons but of a much smaller size, The feeling at that time was that if there was a sign before and it did no harm why would a sign half that size do harm now, That is why it was granted on the adjacent building, Mayor Nichols: I thought that was incredible logic that the variance was granted because it was on the same building under a different use, I never conceived before that we granted variances to buildings. I thought we actually granted them to businesses and the inconsistency of the Planning Commission's action on the sign ordinance was a little surprising to me. At least my interpretation of it is a consistent action, I can speak only for myself, of course, but I do feel that was a very inconsistent action. In this particular instance, I believe the grounds for a variance have been met, I believe that the same or greater privilegs have been extended to other businesses in the immediate vicinity and I believe this is the most impelling reason for granting a variance. On the earlier application this evening there was no demonstration that similar signage was given to other similar businesses in similar locations. I believe the conditions for a variance have been met here, Councilman Jett: Let me just make a few remarks in reference to the other sign that was granted on top of the building, If I recollect correctly, one of the reasons why that was granted was because this was a com- pletely different use that was in that building, This is an existing use that has been in herefor years. That sign that went up there, the party is going into a specialized business and he needs some way of identifying himself plus the fact that he only has one e.yit 4a .-n e and that is from the front parking area plus the fact that he has a small place and he is sandwiched between these other businesses so he had -17- 40 C, C, 12/27/65 Page Eighteen VARIANCE NO, 577 - Continued a hardship. I am interested in the reasons given and I am interested in Councilman Snyder's observation, I haven't heard him come up with one argument in favor of this. He says in his opinion the man has met the requirements, You are getting down to personalities, I think this gentleman is quite friendly with certain people on the Planning Commission, in the City Hall, and certain people on the City Council, I didn't bring this up, Councilman Snyder; I would be happy to admit that Mr. Wax is my friend. I would also point out, though, that the relationships.between a couple other Councilmen and Mr. Wax is not on that basis, I draw my observation from your remarks here tonight on different cases, Move that Variance No, 577 be approved subject to the conditions of the Planning Department, Mayor Nichols: I will second the motion, City Attorney, Mr, Williams: I am not sure a variance is necessary here, If a man puts the same sign up and puts it smaller than he had before, he had a non conforming use for the sign Florsheim Shoes, he could put the same size sign up, repaint it, paint it a different color, he puts up a smaller sign, he is not increasing the non conforming use but decreasing it and I question whether there is any need for a variance, Councilman Jett; The sign that he has now is painted on the building, City Attorney, Mr, Williams: I am not concerned with that, He has a sign that doesn't conform which is larger than this sign which doesn't conform, I am not sure he needs a variance. Action on Councilman Snyder's motion: Motion resulted in a tie vote as follows; Ayes; Councilman Snyder, Mayor Nichols; Noes: Councilmen Jett, Heath, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that this matter be held over to the first regular meeting in January, 19669 with the hearing closed. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that the City Attorney be supplied all the necessary information regarding this matter by the staff so that he can make a ruling as to whether a variance is necessary at all, Elm 9 0 • C C. 12/27/65 'HEARINGS - Continued Page Nineteen UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT N0, 106 LOCATION: 912 South California Hope House for the Multiple between Barbara and Vine. Handicapped, Inc, HELD OVER Request for approval of a residence child care center for multiple handicapped children in Zone R-A denied by Planning Commission Resolution No, 1853, Called up by Council on November 29, 1965, City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: The notice of this public hearing appeared in the West Covina Tribune on December 16, 1965 and 36 notices were mailed to property owners in the area, (Read Planning Commission Resolution No,, 1853,) Mayor Nichols: This is the time and place for the public hearing, Mrs, Evelyn Schwartz The property in question is on the 930 West Barbara south side of my back yard. I understand there will be 25 or more children in that locale. I don't think there is enough area there to permit that many children on R-1 property, I don't think it is right to go in there and give an unclassified use permit. If they do, there is_nothing to stop the rest of California being rezoned and we are a R-1 area and have'fought to keep it that way for the last six or.seven years, Mr, Don Sheridan 1.007 Robindale West Covina Mr, C. A. Plummer 1421 South Hollencrest Drive West Covina entirely and I don't think I would I am against this application because I feel it is in the wrong zone, I own the property at 906 South California, which is the property to the immediate north. I agree with the Planning Commission want to live next door to it, There being no further public testimony, the public portion of the hearing was closed,(Hearing re -opened on following page) Councilman Heaths reason he brought it up. He must the hearing at this time he won't out in a later time, In light of hearing held open until Councilman This was called up by Councilman Krieger and I don't recall the have some reasons and if we close be permitted to bring those reasons this, could we hold this over with the Krieger comes back? Mayor Nichols: It would be my reaction that the determination on this matter could well be held over if that is the desire of the Council. However, remember that people have come in to give their testimony on these matters and if every time a Councilman is absent we just don't handle the item that was involved I think we often times might slow down the City business inordinately, Councilman Heaths calling this up and causing these it is that important it should be for the benefit of their decision. I think if Councilman Krieger something that justifies people an inconvenience, I think given to the rest of the Council has if -19- C, C. 12127/65 Page Twenty UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 106 - Continued Councilman Snyder: I would agree with you. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that this matter be held over to the Council meeting of January 10, 1966 with the hearing held open, (Mayor Nichols voted "No",) VARIANCE N0, 573 Edward La Berge HELD OVER and PRECISE PLAN N0, 4139 REV, 1 Edward La Berge HELD OVER plan to add storage shed in Zone R-P Appealed by applicant on December 3, LOCATION: 1803 Danes Drive between Pioneer and Eckerman, Request to allow an accessory building in the required rear yard in Zone R-P denied by Planning Commission Resolution No, 1855; request for approval of precise denied by Resolution No, 1856, 1965, City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: Notice of this public hearing appeared in the West Covina Tribune on December 16, 1965, and 26 notices were mailed to property owners in the area, ('Read Planning Commission Resolutions 1855 and 1856,) Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that these matters be heard concurrently, Mayor Nichols: This is the time and the place for the public hearing, Mr, Edward La Berge I did construct the building 2247 East Evergreen illegally; however I didn't know West Covina it, There was an old building on there and I tore the old building down and put a.big slab in the same location. I neglected to show my slab on my plan. Now we need storage space and I built this thinking I could replace the existing structure, I should have had a building permit. I probably should have known that, I believe I and others have been under misapprehensions in the City. -Home Savings and Loan architects when they got their nine -point variance made the comment, "We didn't. know the City ordinances," I thought it was very strange at that time that the designers didn't know the City ordinance but here I don't know them and I have been around a long time. We are talking about a variance for a little building. Nobody is objecting to it. It is in the back a foot and a half from the property line and doesn't do any harm • to anybody. The man next door has already given me a letter stating he had no objection to it. I think I have grounds for a variance. My building at 600 North Azusa was granted a variance reducing from 15 to five feet for the side yards. We also have a building up there where the dentist's office was but we have a 15 foot reduction to five feet there. There have been two precedents estab- lished for the reduction of side yards. This is a rear yard at the rear and a side yard at the side. My point is that we already have one precedent established for the reduction of side or rear yards, two precedents on those two buildings, -2 0= • • C. C. 12/27/65 page Twenty One VARIANCE NO, 573 6 PRECISE PLAN NO. 413(1) - Continued The Fire Department has come up with the recommendation that because I have brought up this change, which I think is grossly unfair, they want me to put a new fire hydrant across the street, change my door set-up which has been approved on my precise plan; they want me to take out my gas meters in the driveway; all this for a $650 building, I would have to change my gas meters, change the way the door swings, and they want a clearance of 17 feet 4 inches between the house and the office and there isn't that much room there. I would have to tear out the!chimney. I think it is ridiculous to require somebody because they come up for a minor change to do all these other things, Mayor Nichols: If this Council should approve a request here on a variance, we have no precise plan before us so this would have to go back to the Planning Commission, These conditions that you suggest might or might not come and be pertinent here but they are not pertinent here now,. Mr, Edward La Berge: If the approval conditions that I have to do all these things, I don't want it, I don't want to spend $1,100 or $1,500 just to give an additional fire protection to a vacant lot across the street, I did try and cooperate. I put in a planter, which I didn't have to do, at the request of the City. I would like to have the Fire Department conditions waived. There being.no further public testimony, the public portion of the hearing was closed, Councilman Snyder: Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: inches, It defines a structure and Department would ask for the permit question is eight feet. How tall does a structure have to be to be considered a building? There is a definition in the Uniform Building Code of 42 dictates when the Building of a structure, The structure in Councilman Heath: I sat in on this hearing at the Planning Commission level and what Mr, La Berge is talking about is this: He's referring to the variance and not the precise plan, It was thought as is the City policy that should there be a request for a variance or application for a variance that all of the rest of the property must be brought up to standards. Sometimes they will apply for a variance for a shed in the back yard and as a condition of granting this variance we have made them put in sidewalks, curbs and gutters, et cetera. So when Mr, La Berge was before the Planning Commission they said if this variance was granted he would have to up -date everything in the property, including the swinging of a door and the installation of a fire hydrant not on the property, near the property to increase it from a two and a half to a. four -inch size. I would like to say this; I was in agreement with the Planning Commission when I heard the testimony at that level because technically I believe the Planning Commission is right, However, I happened to be up in the offices on Azusa Avenue and went out the back door and took a look at this shed and I don't know how you are going to consider it as an accessory building. The building is 36 inches wide and runs along the edge of the property and he has six big doors on the front where he stores signs. I would like to know the definition of an accessory building because if this is an accessory building, I think our ordinance should be changed, -21- C'o C, 12/27/65 Page Twenty Two VARIANCE NO 573 & PRECISE PLAN NO. 413(1) - Continued City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: It is four feet by forty feet, Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: A building, part of a building or structure or use which is subordinate to and the use of which is incidental to the main building. That is the definition in the code of an accessory building, Councilman Heath: This is a six -door shed where they stack "For Sale" signs,, I don't think that this building is really a supplemental use to the main build- ing. I don't think the storage of signs within his building is a use of his building. If the signs are stored in this building this is not a supplemental use to the building on the front of the property, City Attorney, Mr, Williams: It would have to be for him to use it at all. The use of the main building is as a real estate office. These signs have to do with the use of the building, mainly real estate. If it isn't accessory, it isn't permitted. You can't have a structure on the property that isn't accessory to the main building, Councilman Snyder: Mr. Edward La Berge: City Attorney, Mr, Williams: What is the outside of this? It is wood and painted white. It conforms to the Building Code? Mr. Edward La Berge: Mr, Fowler hasn't looked at it. They just cited me, Councilman Jett: It looks like it is back in behind there and there is no one in opposition to it. I think the man would be entitled to have a shed where he could keep some signs. I think it would be nicer to have them in something like that than to clutter up his office, Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Councilman Snyder: He could move it and knock off a portion at the end and it would conform,, Is there any place on his lot that he can move it to? Planning Director, Mr,, Joseph: He could move these parking spaces in a little and move it 15.feet out of the rear yard and he could have a portion of it. It depends on what he wants to do with the existing garage here, Councilman Snyder: It seems to me there are possi- bilities for moving this,, You • may need some reduction of the 15-foot side yard setback but I think that this should be held over for consultation between Mr, La Berge and the staff for consideration of some of these possibilities, Councilman Heath: He could put some pipe racks here and stand these signs in there, couldn't he? Open? -22- 11 Ca C. ' 12[27l65 'VARIANCE NO, 573 & PRECISE PLAN N0, 413(1) - Continued Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Councilman Heath: Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Page Twenty -Three Yes, A building is designed as four sides and a roof, If he did that it would look terrible, wouldn't it? That would be storing merchandise out of doors and that is prohibited in the R-P zone, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, that this matter be held over to the first regular meeting in January, 1966 and that the staff and Mr, La Berge consult regarding other possible ways to solve this problem, Mayor Nichols: Mr, Edward La Berge: Mayor Nichols: Mr, Edward La Berge: Mayor Nichols: When did you build this? Three months ago. I had the slab six months or a year ago, Did you have the slab poured before you were granted the R-P zoning? Yes, The Home Savings project that you talk about was denied, those variances, Mr, Edward La Berge: I meant the one they had the referendum on, This Council denied that. It is a poor source to cite,. Mayor Nichols: It is my recollection that this Council was quite helpful and cooperative in granting your use up there and in making some exceptions on the front for driveway area and so forth. It is also my recollection that more than most people in the City you have had considerable experience with zoning matters and the City government, and it seems to me it is rather inexcusable for a man of your knowledge and experience to put up a structure in violation of the City zoning laws and then come in pleading ignorance, You said you didn't_ know and that pleads ignorance of the law, Mr, Edward La Berge: I thought I could replace an existing structure, Mayor Nichols: I don't see a man of your great experience in this City, selling and buying real estate, getting variances and zone changes, how you could plead ignorance of the law, Mr, Edward La Berge: I believe that if Periera and Luckman, the architects can say they have no knowledge of the zoning and get away,by being approved by appointed members of the Planning Commission'for nine variances on side yard setbacks, front yard setbacks,R-2 density requirements -- I think that was a crime, -23 - C, C. 12/27/65 Page Twenty -Four VARIANCE N0, 573 * PRECISE PLAN NO. 413(1) - Continued Councilman Snyder: They didn't necessarily approve it because of that reason, Mr, La Berge, I thought you were very pleasant in your approach tonight and you said in the past you may have been a bad boy. It just goes to prove the rain falls on the just and the unj-ust, Councilman Heath: shed, Does he need a variance? By the same token, this man took down a shed and put up a smaller Action on Councilman Snyder's motion: Motion carried, PLANNING COMMISSION PARCEL MAP N0, 7 Robert Tellis APPROVED LOCATION: Northeast corner of Citrus and Vanderhoof, 2.Lots - 1 Acre - Area District III Approved by Planning Commission on December 15, 1965, • (Councilman Jett stepped out of the chambers for a few minutes,) City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: i (Read Planning Commission conditions for this map,) (Gave brief summary of this matter,) Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that Parcel Map No, 7 be approved subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission, FREEWAY EAST REPORT Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: (Gave brief summary re this matter,) Councilman Heath: Between Barranca and Grand, is there a frontage road there? (Councilman Jett re-entered the chambers,) Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Yes, There is a frontage road • there, The frontage road does not show complete here but I believe it comes down to here (indicating), Councilman Heath: Is there a frontage road there or is that street back 800 feet considered to be the frontage road? If it is, what does it serve? Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: This is a continuation of Holt and was brought up in the Victor Gruen studies, This was a proposed street by Victor Gruen, He wanted a continuous access route south of the freeway to carry traffic east and west and not to be combined with either the interchange or the frontage road traffic, .24- r-7 LJ .. C. CO 12/27/65 FREEWAY EAST STUDY REPORT - Continued Councilman Heath: Planning Director, Mr, Joseph: Plan B showed the possibility of cul-de-sac on either side, Councilman Snyder: City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: Page Twenty -Five Is there a frontage road between Grand and Holt? No, There was not a proposed frontage road here, The Study a road coming up from Holt with a This is brought up as freeway east, When are we going to get the full Gruen report? You will probably get it in a week or two, Councilman Snyder: This extension of Holt which is vital to the Gruen report as well as these freeway interchanges, isn't it meaningless to adopt this freeway plan without the City eventually putting these other matters on the master plan of streets? City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: Councilman Jett: We have to meet with the State officially. Who do you mean "we"? City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: The Division of Hi hwa s from g Y Los Angeles to start the ball rolling, The City Council has to adopt some kind of plan first, Councilman Jett: Can a meeting be arranged where the Council can go talk to the members of the State? City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: You did this on Vincent Avenue, This would be the same thing, Councilman Jett: I think we should sit down and get some ideas. We don't know whether.. the State would even consider this plan or any other plan we might submit. I would like to talk to some of those people at the State and find out what they have in mind. I think if we got with the State and came up with what we want, I think we have more of a chance of getting what we want, Councilman Snyder: When we go to the State we have to say that this is what we think we want and they will tell us whether or not we can have it, Councilman Jett: This is what I am talking about, Councilman Heath: I think that is a good point. I think Council representatives should go down as early as possible so we don't back up to a deadline. Quite a bit of traffic will come off of the freeway and circulate around to these services or these businesses right along facing the freeway. That is why they put the businesses on the freeway so they have exposure and direct access from the freeway, It looks in this plan that we.are creating another monster line the Vincent Avenue Interchange where to come off the freeway and into the Plaza you have -25- 1­1 C. C. 12/27/.65 Page Twenty -Six FREEWAY EAST STUDY REPORT - Continued to go all around. I think the same thing is happening here to get around to these businesses on the frontage road. We are going to.have to come off and go back into the City between Barranca and Grand, back into the City six or eight hundred feet and cut back and go to these services. I don't think this map makes freeway traffic readily accessible to freeway business. I think there is a positive definite relationship between the interchange and the frontage road and I don't think this plan does it. Councilman Snyder: I think we have to accept the interchanges. I think eventually where they are related we can work out the frontage road in relation to the interchange but eventually we have to consider putting Holt Avenue and these other recommendations on the master plan of streets. This apparently is the best they can come up with for recommendations for interchanges here. We have time to integrate the frontage road or businesses into this system later but we have to have a starting point to talk from. Councilman Jett: I would like to talk to the State. Mayor Nichols: Let's get a meeting with the State 0 as soon as possible. City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: We will set up a meeting for you with the State. Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to set this matter over to a meeting on the 17th of. January, 1966 subject to the State Division of Highways. (Councilman Heath voted "No".) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REPORT City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: I would like to hold this over to the loth. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that this matter be held over to the meeting of January 10, 1966. ZONE EXCEPTION CASE NO. 7972 Los Angeles County Rest Home Councilman Jett: I think in this case the Planning Department has covered what the Council's action was. I think it is self-evident. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to receive and file this copy of the letter of the Planning Commission re this matter. -26- • • C, C, 12/27/65 PLANNING COMMISSION - Continued REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF DECEMBER 15, 1965 Unclassified Use Permit No, 107 Japanese Community Center Approved and Precise Plan No, 481 Japanese Community Center Approved 'RECREATION AND PARKS None GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None CITY MANAGER.REPORTS Page Twenty -Seven So indicated by Mr, Aiassa, The following items were called up: These items were called up by Councilman Jett, UTILITY POLE REMOVAL ON GLENDORA AVENUE - FREEWAY TO VALINDA City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: We have an active program going with the Edison Company where it will be possible for us to take out those poles and relocate them in the alley area. This is for your information only, SPECIFICATIONS FOR SEWER MAINTENANCE SERVICE BY PRIVATE CONTRACTOR Mayor Nichols: POLICE OFFICER OFF -DUTY EMPLOYMENT Mayor Nichols: This item has been deleted from the agenda, I would like to hold this over. Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that this matter be held over to the next regular meeting of the Council, -;27- 0 C, C, 12/27/65 CITY MANAGER REPORTS —Continued "WELCOME TO WEST COVINA" SIGNS City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: Page Twenty -Eight (Gave brief summary of this matter,) Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that the staff be instructed to prepare plans and specifications for the "Welcome To West Covina" signs and investigate the possible locations as to their availability and visibility and all other factors relating to signs and bring back a recommendation to the Council; and to be authorized, if necessary, to use professional help, DISPLAY CASE FOR CITY HALL LOBBY Mayor Nichols: We discussed this thing some time ago and authorized the staff to move ahead in that direction but Mr. Aiassa informed me we forgot to appropriate any money. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, to appropriate funds not to exceed $400.00 out of the General Fund for the display case for the City Hall lobby, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: Councilman Krieger, PERSONNEL RETIREMENT PROPOSAL City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: We had a meeting with the Personnel Board, Occidental brought up proposals. It was suggested that the retirement proposal be returned back to the Personnel Board for a review with Occidental and then return a final proposal to the City Council, Mayor Nichols: I attended that meeting, Councilman Krieger attended the meeting, and Occidental had proposals that they had never offered before. We informed them they were a little bit tardy in coming around at such a late time. It seemed the only fair thing to do would be to ask the Personnel Board to review in detail these new proposals with any subsequent recommendation of the Council as to whether these new proposals should involve reconsideration of the Personnel Board's recommendation, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that this matter be referred back to the Personnel Board for review and report and recommendation. back to the Council on the new proposals of Occidental, C, Co 12/27/65 CITY MANAGER REPORTS - Continued BALDWIN PARK RESOLUTION FOR POLICE OFFICERS RE DRAFT City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: Page Twenty -Nine (Gave brief report of this matter,) Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to accept the staff's report and table any action on the said resolution from Baldwin Park, POLICE AUCTION City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: (Gave brief summary of this matter,) This is for your information only. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to express the Council's appreciation to the Chief and the Department, those who participated, in efficiently getting rid of this additional surplus and adding money to the City, 0 COMPLAINT — BLACKBERRY BUSH NUISANCE City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: I would like to carry this matter over to the loth, Mayor Nichols: All right, Councilman Heath: y I have been getting letters from the Police Department, copies of letters from the Police Department, two and three each meeting, I realize our Police Department is doing a tremendous job. I think that they are the best, However, I think that these letters are getting sort of monotonous lately and if some other department starts to take the same procedure I think that we are going to have more copies of letters of commendation than anything else. I would just as soon not get any more copies of those letters from the Police Department, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, to hold this matter over to the first regular meeting in January, Mayor Nichols: I think there is validity to what Councilman Heath says only that we don't receive letters from any other department in the City and it rather gives the inference that the Police Department is the only one being praised, I don't mind getting the letters, Don't cut them off to me, City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: We will just give them to the Mayor and he can route them if he wants to, -29- C C,, Co 12/27/65 CITY MANAGER REPORTS - Continued TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES December 17, 1965 Page Thirty Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that the Traffic Committee Minutes of December 17, 1965be received and placed on file,, Councilman Jett: On these Minutes, we approve these without really knowing or under- standing just what all is involved. Up at Sunset and Puente there is a little frontage road that has been there ever since they put in that tract,, You can go in off of Puente and go up to these houses,, For some reason that is now being blocked off and there is no way of getting up in there and I understand that was a result of an approval we had given,, How in the world are those people going to get in and out? Councilman Heath: Another drive was installed half way up the block. We approved those traffic light signals as one of our actions prior to eight o'clock. We approved • the plans and specifications. I feel at that time the staff should have definitely told us that there is a change,, On the ordinary traffic installation where.you are going to put up a pole and a couple of lights, I don't want to see any plans on that but if there is a definite change in street structure I think the staff should tell the Council that this is being done,, Councilman Jett: This is what I had in mind,, Mayor Nichols: I think that is a valid request. Action on Councilman Heaths motion: Motion carried,, PROPOSED VALINDA ANNEXATION MEETING City Manager, Mr,, Aiassa: There is a meeting at the Valinda School at 8:00 P.M. on January 6,, It was suggested that an interested high level City representative and also a member of the Planning Department should attend to supply statistical and other technical data,, Mayor Nichols: Councilman Jett, would you be willing to represent the City? • Councilman Jett: I will be happy to,, City Manager, Mr,, Aiassa: We will so notify them that you will be there and you will have a member of the Planning and Engineering staffs with you,, -3 0- • • C. C. 12/27/65 Page Thirty -One CITY MANAGER REPORTS - Continued PENDING MATTERS SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: You have a register of voters where it shows the division of the supervisorial districts. You all have copies of this. HHFA REPORT City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: I sent you copies of that. You also have copies of the HHFA inquiry on theCivic Center. AMBULANCE SERVICE - PROPOSED RATE CHANGE City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: There is a notification of an adjustment in the rate charge for emergency ambulance service. The staff is reviewing this. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: You have a report from the Planning Department on Municipal Code Section 6236. This will probably come up on the loth. CITY MANAGERS' CONFERENCE City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: in Coronado, February 23 to 25. like to attend that meeting. Mayor Nichols: CITY CLERK I have one memorandum here that there is a spring managers' meeting If there are no objections, I would The Council would have no objection to your attending this meeting. REPORT ON "FOR SALE" SIGNS IN CITY OF GLENDORA City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: I would like to hold this over. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that this matter be held over to the meeting of January 10, 1966. Councilman Heath: Can we have a reciprocal trade • agreement with cities on business licenses such as this? City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I know that many cities have done it. It is not done officially. It is kind of an understanding between cities. Councilman Heath: Can we charge Glendora realtors and not charge Covina realtors for coming into the City? Councilman Snyder: Why don't we go ahead and initiate our own.proceedings for that? -31- • U • C,'C, 12f27f65 'CITY 'CLERK Continued GENERAL PLAN STUDY FOR REVISION Councilman Snyder: City Manager, Mr, Aiassa: the General Plan for a restudy, Page Thirty Two Where are we on the General Plan? There is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to reactivate Councilman Heath: I brought it up about three months ago and said I would like to see it done before election time. I still feel that the General Plan needs to be revised and up -dated. I think that this proposal by these citizens is the wrong approach and can do nothing but damage to the City, Mr, Williams, if citizens of the City started an initiative to up -grade the General Plan, this means that it must be put on the ballot or it could eventually be put on the ballot and the people in the City would vote whether they want to up -grade the plan or not and presumably everybody wants it up -graded so they would vote "Yes", Suppose 18 months from now it needs revision again, Does it have to be put back on the ballot since it is initiated by the people and the people have to approve the revision of it the next time? Once there is an initiative passed, it is out of the control of the Council, is that true? City Attorney, Mr, Williams: I don't see how it could be the subject of an initiative in the first place. It is not a legislative action, Councilman Heath: Perhaps we should have a report from the City Attorney, If he doesn't think it is subject to an initiative, we should know it, Councilman Snyder: If this were to pass this merely requires that we adopt a General Plan, Does it require that we have hearings or can we adopt the one we have? City Attorney, Mr, Williams: The State law sets forth the manner of adopting a general plan. I think the State law also sets forth the manner of whether or not it is permissible or it is discretionary with the Council. I don't think this is a legislative matter. There may be some elements here that are legislative. I would have a severe question as to the legality of this as an initiative, I think the initiative can be defeated. I think it would be an unfortunate type of lawsuit. I think none of you want it. I have never seen this before. You cannot zone by initiative. That has been upheld in court, CITY TREASURER Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the Treasurer's report for the month of November, 1965 be recieved and placed on file, -32- • U l C, C, 12/27/65 14AYORIS REPORTS WARRANTS Page Thirty -Three Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that Councilman Heath be authorized to sign the warrants this evening,, U,, S,, CONFERENCE OF MAYORS Mayor Nichols: We received a letter from Mr,, Blazedale of Honolulu urging the. City to join the U. S. Conference of Mayors at an annual fee of $100, We have never belonged and I felt that this matter should be brought to the Council for your determination,, Councilman Heath: Mayor Nichols: Councilman Snyder: Mayor Nichols: COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS ANTI -SMUT CAMPAIGN We have studied this thing over and over again. I don't favor it,, We get all their literature without belonging. I don't think it requires any action,, We will leave it the way it is, Councilman Jett: I think you have a copy of the Minutes of the meeting we had on pornography,, I would like to have this resolution approved because I intend to send this out,, RESOLUTION NO. 3294 ADOPTED Lewd Literature Mayor Nichols: Councilman Jett presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REQUESTING THE ASSEMBLY CRIMINAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO HOLD AND CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE WIDE SPREAD AVAIL- ABILITY AND ACCESS OF LEWD LITERATURE TO THE CHILDREN OF THIS COMMUNITY" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution, -33- U :7 Co Co 12/27/65 RES'OLUTION NOa 3294 Continued Page Thirty -Four Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, that said resolution be adopted, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes; Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes- None Absent- Councilman Krieger Said resolution was given No, 3294, Councilman Jett- Mr, Aiassa, we have a little problem of finance, Nancy has been covering these meetings. We can't pay her out of the regular fund and we have to pay her out of the General Fund, We would like to have some money approved, Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, that the sum of $500.00 be made available to the Chairman of the Committee For Anti® Pornography to cover expenses of the meeting, secretary salaries, paying for any visiting dignitaries, et cetera, Motion passed on roll call as follows- Ayes- Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noeso None Absent.- Councilman Krieger INITIATIVE Councilman Snyder- What would happen to an initiative to adopt an ordinance in a general law city if you suddenly became a charter city? Do all those disappear from the books? City Attorney, Mr, Williams- Yes, If this initiative were presented to you, you could adopt the ordinance without doing any harm, You cannot, however, amend it, But if you adopted the ordinance before the initiative petition is presented, then I don't believe it would do any harm. Then you could amend it later if you wanted to, Suppose you introduced that ordinance right now tonight and at the next meeting you could pass it. What harm is done? It has no more efficacy because it is by initiative as if you do it, Just pass the ordinance, There is'nothing in it that you are opposed to, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that the City Attorney bring back such an ordinance for consideration for adoption at the first regular meeting in January, -34- Co Co 12/27/65 Page Thirty Five • DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, to approve demands totalling $35,830,02 as listed on demand sheets B225 and B226. Also B227 including time deposits of $250,000,00, Motion passed on roll call as follows° Ayes Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes; None Absents Councilman Krieger. There being no further business, Motion by Councilman Jett, seconded by Councilman Heath, that this meeting adjourn at 11:45 P.M. to Monday, January 3, 1966 at 7;30 P.M. Motion passed on roll call as follows° Ayes° Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes; None Absent- Councilman Krieger • ATTESTg Wo APPROVED CITY CLERK MAYOR 1 =35-