02-27-1956 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
February 27, 1956
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hurst at 8:20 P.M. in the West Covina
City Hall.
Present: Mayor Hurst, Councilmen Sperline, Kay, Van Horn, Brown
Absent: None
Others: City Manager, City Clerk and Ass°t. Administrative Officer, City
Engineer, City Treasurer, City Attorney, Mr. M.C. Gerschler, Planning
Department; Mr. W. Nollac, Sanitation Engineer.
MINUTES Minutes of February 14, 1956 were corrected to read on Page 10, .last
APPROVED item, as follows: "communication from Mr. H.L. Johnson, Civil Engineer,"
instead of ".communication from Acting Director of Public Works, Mr. H.L.
>' Johnson" as shown. Minutes were approved as corrected. The Minutes of
Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 20, 1956 were approved as submitted.
ORAL Mr. Gerschler stated that a request had been received from
COMMUNICATIONS applicant of Tentative Tract Map..No. 22520, Residential Investment
Company, to hold this Tentative Map over until next regular
meeting of the Council as applicant is preparing a revised map
which he would like to have the Planning Commission consider.
It was consensus that this request be granted.
WRITTEN City Clerk presented and read a communication dated February
COLIIIUNICATIONS 22, 1956, per Olive M. Britt, appealing to the City Council
in regard to the denial of Zone Change No. 69 and Precise Plan
No. 71 by the Planning Commission on February :15, 1956.
Public Hearing for this matter was designated to be held 3/26/56.
The City Clerk presented and read a communication from the City of Covina enclosing
a certified copy of Resolution No. 678, a Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Covina, protesting "Northerly Annexation District No. 2,1]," to the City of West
Covina passed by the City Council of the City of Covina nt their regular meeting of
February 20, 1956. This communication was dated February 23, 1956 per Clarke
Chapman, City Clerk, City of Covina.
OPENING OF BIDS City Clerk opened and presented sealed bid to the City Council.
10TILT -BED 'TRAILER Bid was received from Brown -Bevis Industrial Co. of Los Angeles
STREET DEPARTMENT on 10-ton American Tandem Trailer at the price of $3,250.00
f.o.b. West Covina City Yard. Shipment in two to three weeks.
Bid bond in the amount of $350.00 was attached.
Councilman Sperline: Why have we received only one bid on this?
City Clerk: This is the second time this item has been advertised. The
last time it was advertised we received no bids.
Motion by Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Van Horn and carried that trailer
bid be referred to the City Attorney, City Manager and City Engineer for recommendation.
-1--
DATES SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Public hearing was set for March 26, 1956 on the
following:
ZONE CHANGE NO. 68
Cit;y iniated. Locations LaBreda Avenue, South from.
Rowland Avenue in Tract No. 21159. Proposed Rdl.
Exi jing zones R-A. Potential R-P. Recommended for
app_ ova.l by Planning Commission on February 15, 1956.
PRECISE PLAN NO. 70
D.H. �;.obinson & Gladys E. Robinson, applicants.
and
Location: West side of Glendora Avenue between Mere
ZONE CHANGE INTO. 67
cad Avenue and Vine Avenue. Request: Adoption of
Official Precise Plan and R-P and C-1 zoning. Ex-
isting zone: R-A, potential R-P. Recommended for
approval by Planning Corr_ission on February 15, 1956.
PRECISE PLAN NO. 71
Olive M. Britt & Harry M. Britt, applicants. Location:
and
East side of Sunset Avenue between Merced Avenue and
ZONE CHANGE, NO. 69
Francisquito Avenue, at 1334 West It erred Avenue and
1426 South Sunset Avenue. Rer,lest: C-1. Existing
zone: R-A, potential C-1 and R®l. Request: Adop-
tion of official Precise Plan. Recommended for denial
by the Planning Commission on February 15, 1956.
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Hurst stated that this is the time and place for
ZONE CHANGE NO. 65 public hearing on Zone Change No. 65 and Precise Plan
and No. 69. Location: West side of Glendora Avenue at
PRECISE PLAN NO. 69 Cameron Avenue. Request adoption of an Official Pre -
Darby and Van HORN rise Plan. Request Cml. Existing zone: R-A. Reso-
HELD OVER & lution No. 334 and Resolution No. 333 recommending de -
REFERRED TO PL. CONDil. nial by the Planning Commission were read by Mr.
Gerschler. Maps were presented by the City Engineer.
Zone Change No. 65 and Precise Plan No. 69
Mr. Gerschler presented and read the recommendations of the P-:Iannin.g Commission and
City Engineer as follows:
1) That all street improvements outlined in Section 49 of Ordinance No. 225, including
utilities, be installed accordingly and meet the approval -of the City Engineer.
This to include street lights, sidewalks and sanitary sewers, This is to include
improvements on Cameron Avenue when R.O.W. is available.
10) That the precise plan conform to the proposed R.O.W. of Cameron Avenue Extension
per C.S,B. 2453-2.
3) That all necessary street widening shall be deeded to the City of West Covina.
4) ThLt all buildings and signs not exceed one story in height.
5) That all exterior lighting be installed and maintained in a manner eliminating any
nuisance to adjacent residential property.
6) That adequate water supply and fire protection be provided as required by Ordinance
No. 237 and Ordinance No. 315.
7) That all excaating and grading work conform to provisions of Ordinance No. 384.
--2--
` :i'. ,.-e,'1-bb
PP 69 & ZC 69--Darby & Van Horn--coat°d.
8) That all bonds, fees and deposits for improvements be posted before bu:'.lding
permits are issued.
9) That a 6-foot masonry wall be cons,ructed along the southwesterly and north-
westerly property lines.
10) That pump islands be set back not -.css than 151 0" from property lines.
11) That the parking layout be subject to the approval of the chief building inspector.
12) That the subject area be graded to drain to Glendora Avenue or Cameron Avenue ex-
tensions
All those wishing to present testimony on this matter were sworn in by the City Clerk.
4r. Bert C. Van Horn of 932 Van Horn Avenue, West Covina, speaking in favor, stated as
follows:
"I would like to bring to the Councils attention three items on which the Planning
Commission turned down this zoning; the resolution states that whereas testimony presented
at said hearing as well as'studies and investigations made on its behalf reveal the follow-
ing facts. All the testimony given at that hearing was in favor of this zoning. Further-
more, the investigation made by the Planning Commission, in my opinion, was inadequate due
to the fact that we have investigated the area and there were in inquiries made among the
neighbors by the Planning Commission. Also if they had done investigation of the community
in that area they would have, beyond a doubt, found that this piece of property on Glendora
between Service and Vine is very much in need of this zoning due to the fact we have zoning
at Vine Avenue and at Service. This leaves the intervening area which creates a very dan-
gerous situation as regards traffic. It is dangerous because the property owners along
the area have not made proper set -backs or installed proper curbs and .SL�:1ters for a 100
foot boulevard. 'There is only one way to get the set -back and tha":- is for City to condemn
the property and buy it and put in improvements. That is t,-iihat wi-.l have to be done unless
this zoning is given, or further study given regarding this zr^srg to the entire area which
takes in one-half mile. If this zoning -is given, set -backs .... .i be made and proper things
will be put in here and such hazard will be eliminated. ?`: ":ss further stated by the Plan-
ning Commission that it appears there is no special need of zoning of this type at this
location. It seems to me that when a major oil company is willing to invest 75,000 to
80,000 dollars that a service station will do adequate business, it looks like there is a
need for it. The two stores shown on the Precise Plan will rent readily. I have had sev-
O^ral calls from people wanting to go into business here so there must be a need. These
res will bring into the city approximately $200.00 a month in sales tax. I ask you,
gentlemen, is that needed in the City of West Covina? I think it is. I do not think there
is any question that business is needed in West Covina. The second item deals with the
Plann-.ig Commision°s statement that it tends to 'strip zoneQ Glendora Avenue. I understand
'strip zoning' to be zoning granted without a Precise Plan. This must have a Precise Plan.
This is The same situation as we now have Azusa Avenue and it will be .no more 'strip zoning,
than Azusa Avenue now is and which is turning out very satisfactorily, I believe this takes
care of Item No. 2.
Item No. 3 deals with the statement of the Planning Commission that there is a logical
boundary to the development to the north which should cut off further development to the
south cf that point. This is true. We have established many areas and have set certain
lines and also changed them. In order for the City to progress, you must change lines
many times. I think you will see we need this change badly.
_ -3 -
ZC 69 and PP 65 Cont°d,
Mr. Van Horn: This is about all I have to say other than to restate the fact that
we need business. Cameron and Glendora will become a very in-
teresting intersection. In looking on Llaster Plan it is set forth for signals in that
intersection so how many people want ho;.--.s at the corner of a major and secondary high-
way where there will be signals ringing _:nd Lights. It is not appropriate to have homes
on these four corners. I find that most people living along here are thinking along the
same lines that I am thinking. We fee:: that the Planning Comm, ission does not substantiate
their denial for this zoning and study on Glendora to Service and Vine. I think 1 .have
proven that the Planning Commission, has no reason to deny this zoning. It is just a.
personal reason that should not be interjected in a problem of this type. I feel -that
this zoning should be granted and that the City should make a study of the entire area
between Service and Vine Avenues along Glendora Avenue,
Mr. Leslie Robbins of 187 No. Willow and owner of property at N.E. corner of Cameron
end Glendora speaking in favor stated as follows:
"I have lived on this corner for a good many years and have seen many changes. I be-
lieve that when cross street is put through it will see many more changes. Many people
in this area that I have talked to do not oppose this change.
Mr. B. Flood of 703 S. Glendora Avenue stated that he would like to go on record as being
in favor of this zoning change along Glendora between Service and Vine Avenues.
Mr. W. Weaver of 825 South Glendora Avenue stated that he wished to go on record as being
in accord with this request for zone change as he felt this area is no longer suitable
for residences. "The South line of this property is 1,11 ft. north of my property."
City Clerk presented and read a petition giving support to rezoning from R®1 to Cml of
Glendora Avenue at Southwest corner of Cameron and Glendora signed by 11 property owners
in the 6 and 700 block on Glendora Avenue.
There was no further testimony presented, the hearing was declared closed,
Councilman Sperline: I believe there have been good 1,oint,5 .nought up here. The ex-
tension of Cameron Avenue going th.x-_;_..gh will certainly change
the picture, and it will be a change which, I believe, wi:'. not only be on Glendora but
in the whole community. Perhaps the thing to do is to refer this back to the Planning
Commission with recommendation not only as regards this piece but all the area between
present existing C-1 that ends a little north of this property (Service) and close to
Vine. This might be the thing to do. It is heavily traveled and whether it is good for
AhInes or not brings up a difficult question. This corner is certainly not going to be
airable for homes with future major and secondary crossing.
Councilman Kay: When studying the Master Plan we were rather careful at that
time in discussing various areas, in fact we discussed inte:i.-
section at Cameron and Glendora. I believe it was consensus of 'the Council that we might
be premature in considering commercial zoning there. Now we are considering exact de-
termination of particular boundaries and buffering around them. Conditions may have
changed at this time but for a period since 1943 until about 1948 my family and myself
resided on San Gabriel Boulevard in Pasadena which is a similar situation to that which
you have here. That area is still. used and has many fine homes on it. To say that a
situation similar to what we have on Glendora is unfit to live on is not necessarily
correct. Before we consider any individual parcels, we should consider the over all pic-
ture as to whether it is beneficial to make a change, zoning it to Rm3, Commercial or
R-P, or leave it R-1. I think that before we grant any further zoning in between in
this ,=area, whish may further break doTrm ikTbnt we have estab.�.ished a year ago, we should
study this further.
_4om
ZC 69 & PP 65 Cont'd.
Councilman Brown: I cannot see zoning this without a study of the entire area.
Motion.by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Sperline, and carried, that Zone
change No. 65 and Precise Plan No. 69 bc-, referred back to the Planning Commission tc
study 'the whole area from Service Avenu( to Vine Avenue with recommendations to be pre-
sented to the City Council.
Councilman Van Horn "Not Voting."
Mayor Hurst: We have a side -on and backup treatment on major highways but not
on secondary streets but driveways mi,zt have turn arounds. This
problem we have here would have been answered if we had this 'treatment on Glendora at the
time. Many houses face Glendora Avenue and because of that fact that the County adopted
new requirements in subdivision practice. This will be good for tracts developing in
the
e future and we will not have this problem posed in, the future.
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Hurst stated that this is the time and place for
ZONE CHANGE NO. 62 public hearing on Zone Change No. 62. Location: SW
(In conjunction with Tentative corner of Barranca Street and Garvey Avenue. Request:
Tract Map Noo 22263) R-3. Existing zone: R-A, Potential Rm3. Maps were
Arthur M. Daniels and Junior presented by the City Engineer who stated that Tents -
Realty Company ti,ve Map of Tract No. 22263 was held over as it was
HELD OVER in conjunction with Zone Change 62 and should be con-
sidered at this time. Mr. Gerschler read Resolution
No. 335 of the Planning Commission recommending approval of Zone Change No. 62.
The recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Engineer were read as follows:
1) That all lots conform to Area Distric III requirements.
2) That all street improvements outlined in Section 49 of Ordinanc. No. 225, including
utilities, be installed accordingly and meet the approval of the City Engineer, this
to include sidewalks and Sanitary Sewers.
3) That "A" Street and Virginia Avenue be 60 feet in. wid'• :...
4) Dedicate vehicular access rights along Barranca to all lots.
5) That the map conform to the proposed R. 0. W. of the State Division of Highways
and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District.
• That the map conform to adopted Block Study No. 41.
7) That one foot lots at the end of "A`° Street and southerly and westerly sides of
'Virginia Avenue be dedicated to the City of West Covina in fee simple.
8) That the disposition of existing buildings be shown.
9) That slope easements be granted where required.
10) That all excavating and grading work conform to Ordinance No. 384.
lid That a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along westerly side of the Barranca
Stree"t R.O.W.
--5—
ZC 62 & TM 22263 Cont'd.
It was further stated in.a motion by the Planning Commission that four (4) lots on
Virginia Avenue be excluded from R-3 and remain in R-1.
Mr. Gerschler presented and read for th- records a communication from the applicant
stating a list of suggested dead restrictions which applicant Stated he will imclude
with the tentative or final maps if app3,,Dved.
All those wishing to present testimony- ir. this matter were sworn in by the City Clerk.
Mr. Henderson representing the Etna Engineering Company of 10910 S. Vermont Avenue,
Los Angeles, who in turn represented the purchasers and builders for 'his tract,, spoke
in favor as follows-
-"We might be a little presumptious in assuming that Master Plan was final plan. We have
,done considerable work on the tract to see that it would work for the purpose purchased
%d suggested that Mr. Daniels put in some of the things in the restrictions in what we
derstood some of the people on the bill might object to so we have restrictedL against
motels, trailer camps, etc. It appears that someplace between the homes on the hill and
the commercial area across the street there should be a Buffer zone.
I think we are providing as nice a looking buffer zone as could be built. There is the
Intention to build six (6) unit apartment buildings and to conform to all set -back regu-
lations and off-street parking as required. I think other than that we have not anything
further to say. It does appear there is a minimum amount of green area on the map for
apartment house.use and I can see why people would not want motel or trailer camps per-
mitted in R-3 zone. Maybe we have eliminated by our restrictions their objections.
People looking down on other buildings do not like a wide use of white rock roofs so we
are limiting that to not more than twenty per -cent (20%) of white roofs be permitted.
We have tried to take care of all possible objections in our restrictions.
Councilman Kay. Talking about restrictions did you mention any restrictions on
number of individual units?
Mr. Henderson: It is our intention to build six(6) unit building apartment
type. It will be two-story with. tw,), 'wo bedroom apartments
and four, one bedroom apartments i� _ch building.
Mr. L. Heredia of 138 South Barranca Street spoke in opposition.
"I live.just across the street from this "rabbit warren" that these people are putting
up. According to figures just given I judge there will be from 400 to 500 people in
this area. I have a few questions I would like to bring up being just across the street.
�en I bought my property in 1954, 1 came to the City for information and was told that
a entire area was residential, and.so were other people in this area given this in-
formation. If you will recall there were two petitions signed by seventy-five (75) to a
hundred (100) people protesting this R-3 zoning in this area. The freeway will cause
considerable difficulty as far as traffic for this amount of people. Up and down Barranca,
around Van DerHoof and Mesa Drive there will be a handicap to residential. How about
sanitation? There are no sewers here. The thing is that primarily this entire piece
of property is on an 'apron' to one of the best residential districts in the city and I
think it should be kept to residential.,'
Mr. Cullen of 3150 Virginia Road spoke in opposition. "I do not want to take up too
much time or be repetitious. The case you have before you is for a translation of
potential R-3 into precise R-3. If you will note the area in question it is the only
green south of the Walnut Creek Wash which enjoys this privileged status. So residents
think of it as a new type of zoning to the south of Walnut Creek Wash. The area is in
Area District 111 .,,hich requires 14,000 per square feet per d%_�Tellirg unit. These proposed
units loads land in an area which is primarily for residential area.
A
ZC 62 and TM 22263 Cont'd.
Mr. Cullen. Representative stated there was transitional area between commer-
cial area and residential to the south. Actually, that point
exists in the Walnut Creek Wash. It does not need any 'man-made' transitional line. The
Wash will be 70 feet wide in itself. TnF; people who live south of Walnut Creek Viash have
every right to expect a reasonable plan e maintained for this area to the south. The
Precise Plan consists of tract map. Actually by present day planning standards it is an
illconceived map which should be disowned. It is very poorly laid out from any planners
approach to the tract. The east side of Barranca has established front -on treatment.
This plan will turn the backyards toward some of the property owners near here. Plan is
for a six foot masonry wall but people will have to look at this six foot wall. Another
fault in the Precise Plan is the entrance to the R-3 area. To get to the R-3 area, which
lies north of the southerly four lots, residents will have to go through R-1 area, It is
just not good planning.. This conforms to a Block Study that is years old and had to be
dug out of the files. It is something that is outmoded and I do not think it should be
followed. If the Council goes along with this it should be served by service road or it
0 , .�11, have R-1 area acting as an access to this area. Those two facts are most important.
- ask that you do not approve this tract. It is not a good design and has many faults
in it. Give this matter serious attention on the basis of poor design."
Mr. M. L. Abrams of 2907 Mesa Drive spoke in opposition. "My home is in one of the places
looking down into this development and I agree that there is nothing worse than looking
at white roofs. My neighbors feel the same as I do. Mr. Ells has requested me to voice
his opinion in opposition to this change of zone also. I -do not think that the Precise
Plan as required by City Ordinance has been done in.this case. I do not think that the
tract map informs us as to the certainty of what will be made of this plot of land if it
is zoned. I think the people living around this parcel have the right to know what is
going in there and the city should demand a Precise Plan. Where are building sites going
to be? I feel this body should not rely on statements made by applicants but rest on
their ordinances. I think things Precise Plan applies particularly to is areas of this
type where there are such nice homes abutting. If they put in trailer courts I will not
like it. I believe that the Council should have the City Attorney chc-1.k the question of
notices in regard to the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 1956 hearing. Whether
proper notice was given according to the legal. code. City Attorney should inspect this
matter and see if notice given according to law. I understand T.t did not comply and if
so the action of the Planning Commission would be void and action of the Council, if
any taken, would not be valid either. I was "shut lap" w1h.-,-, asked what type of standards
are set forth regarding a Precise Plan. You cannot treat certain things in a different
manner when you have rules to abide by. The way I gathered it they (Planning Commission)
were not there to hear complaints and stated they had no alternative than but to refer
it to the Council, Mr. Daniels stated at one of the meetings that he had no Precise
Plan, all he had was a tract map. I believe we should be given due notice as to what is
ng on.
Mayor Hurst- We had a plan for your area from R-A to R-1 with Precise Plan
but it did not show the house that you live in. We have never
thought of interpreting a Precise Plan in R-3 as to the actual location of buildings and
size of them. It must be accepted as the rules and regulations of the ordinance set it up.
Mr. Abrams, The rules that governed my house are very different as I have
$30,000 invested in my home alone. Before a potential. zone
change there must be a Precise Plan.. What I have not been able to gather was standards
of Precise Plan.
IS it -tract map or what ord4nance sets forth. Where building sights
U
will be.
ZC 62 & TM 22263 Cont'd.
Councilman Kay- Mr. Abrams in regard to statements of notice were they in ref-
erence to -p,,.1'..lication or notification. You did not attend first
meeting but eit'l-.ended subsequent meetings. You heard .,bout
second meetin&,,,,
Mr. Abrams - It was not a cl;,,Lestion of written notification but in publication
in papers.
Mr,, 1. Matthews of Mesa Drive and Boarranca Street spoke in opposition. "I recently pur-
chased my home and I had looked f"or quite some months for a nice section. After
so, we saw this area in here and checked it well for a nice home area. Think t],4e whole
area has a D.-Loe class of homes to be maintained. I paid 430,000 for my home only a
block from this potential multiple zoning and I think it is going to ruin this,, section.
It is a very beautiful section and is getting much advertising as such. I will probably
my home on the market if this zoning goes through."
Mr. D. Welton of 2837 Vanderhoof Drive spoke in opposition. "They are planning on, putting
six (6) units per lot and on this map it shows 20 lots which means 120 residences. They
are planning on eliminating this overpass until they establish Grand Avenue. I would like
to ask how they are going to have a minimum of 120 cars to get out of this area?"
City Manager-, We have no such definite information in regards to the elimination
of the Barranca Street crossing. There is still a strong indica-
tion that it will be -out through."
Mr. R. Allsopp of 130 S. Barranca spoke in opposition. "I attended most of the planning
Commission meetings on this subject and I also do not feel informed on the zoning laws
and regulations. At the last meeting the only reason that the Planning Commission gave
for the rezoning of this to R-3 was the fact it was on the Master Plan as potential R®3
and they said, in effect, they had the opinion from the City Attorney that because it was
potential R-3 they could not very well change it. I know that when-, I first moved here,
this property was not R-3 or potential R®3 and when changed, I, fly, one, who would be
greatly affected, was never given any consideration as to notices or anything else. What
is the sense of public hearings with the Planning Commission they cannot do anything
about it anyhow? The neighbors have stated the case pretty in that it should be
left the way it is not R-A but R®1 as originally planned. '1(i..Lnut Creek Wash and freeway
is natural barrier to this particular area. It is the nicest section around anyway."
From the floor- In a recent talk with Mr. Daniels regarding certain details he
(Mr. Heredia) gave the information, Mayor Hurst, that you were his brother-
in-law and I wonder if this brings out a legal question here
to ni ght ?
Mayor Hurst- I suppose it could be, but he (Mr Daniels) disowned me as a
brother-in-law sometime ago. No, I am not a brother-in-law
of Mr. Daniels. Some few years ago, he was married to my wife's
sister wino has since passed away. I was not his brother-in-law and I am not now.
Mr. T. Swanson of 2625 Vanderhoof Drive spoke in opposition as follows, "I think it
should be perfectly clear to you present that if this zone goes through, there will be
some 500 people. If the Planning Department should be asked to examine this situation,
they would find there is no where in the city, plotting off a square mile in any direc-
tion from t1lis location, you will not find more than 500 people. You are not using a
Precise for which it has been intended. Once potential zoning is granted you have
obligation if plan meets requirements but it is not reasonable to permit apartment struc-
tures in this ar,�,q 'to provide housing for 500 people with no access, even if the Barranca
Street Overpass is develoned. Without the overcrossing it would be impossible. I doubt
ZC 62 & TM 22263 Cont°d.
Mr. Swanson: if an,;where else in West Covina the -re is such a concentration
of people with less traffic access."
Mr. Henderson spoke in rebuttal. "It i : our understanding there will be sewers to the
May Company which would be usable for tl..'_s property. If that is not the case, then
whatever we do will have to conform to demands of the State Health Department. IVO
are well aware of that. In regard to :,�cr,ing up of houses, there is already a reso-,�Toir
backing up to this property. As rega-u olae Barranca Street plans. In talking wits. the
State Highway Department they are g:7, t;o go over with Barranca Street 100, wide oxid
require additional R.O.tiV. on bot'__ sides with 18-1/2 ft. clearance at freeway. Will back
up further south than southerly edge of this property to start grade of the hig_. ,,, ay . It
is going to bloclr off buildings who are across the street. Access roads along site of
freeway to carry traffic in and out of this tract. I am wondering if any of the property
owners that have $30,000 homes in this area would build those homes, or anything more,
an the flat along Walnut Creek? It is my personal opinion that this is the proper use
4r this land because of topography. It should be used for anything but R-1. It is not
0od for R-1 and I do not think that anyone would build here for that use. Would not
want Trailer Court here, and we do not plan one. Speaking for owner and builder, they
would not object to limitation of apartment houses on thi-, piece of ground. I fully be-
lieve that the Council should zone it with the reservation of restrictions that were
read here and which would be recorded with the tract map. I think owner would agree this
be restricted to ordinary multiple family dwellings. It is unusual to have motels in-
cluded in.listing with multiple dwellings. Set -backs, rear yard area, height limit,
lighting etc., would have to conform to the standards now being used by the City of
West Covina. You can have information you wish as to what would be built here. Would
conform to all, ordinances of the City, %`ith overpass and services roads traffic of 120
cars would not be too much as they do not all come through at the same time. Think that
we have received information regarding highway plans but it is not public as yet and
were unable to obtain plans. I am urging this Council to use descretion and refer this
matter back to the Planning Commission to ask them to consider specifically as to whether
or not this plan will concentrate too large a number of population in '.his area. I be-
lieve you could get a limited amount of dwelling units so that it ;:,:uld not be incom-
patible to this area and street pattern.
Statements was made from the floor in regard to eliminating Oi two-story apartments.
Mr. H. Hughes of 226 S. Homerest stated, "I am willing to recognize no legal reason why
the Mayor should not vote on this matter but from a clearly moral and ethical viewpoint
would request that he (Mayor) withhold his vote."
�• Abrams: Believe that the representative of the applicant mentioned that
certain reservations should be made by this Council. I think
it is indicative that this matter should be sent back to the Planning Commission for
further detailed study on recommendation of the applicant's representative himself as he'
state:., there is need for certain necessary reservations.
Mr. Henderson: I refute Mr. Abrams statement that I said it should have other
considerations or go to the Planning Commission. We are attemp-
ting to guarantee what we are going to do with building here and Council could limit
their approval to that particular use.
Mr. Heredia: When everything has been said there is a lot of things that
are going to have to be resolved later if not now.
ZC 62 & TM 22263 Cont°d.
Mr. H. Gitlin: I am not interested in zoning. I have had dealings with the
City Council and Planning Commission for more than 18 months
and all that time I have never found t,sm to be anything but enterprising and .fair.
Some of the things that have been said .:,re tonight, if the b4ayor has not taken excep-
tion to them, I must, and I say that thF.;e things have been absolutely out of order.
There was no further testimony presentl::7, the hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Sperline: We do require, and we have not done away with requiring a Pre-
cise Plan. What we did a few months ago was to provide a pro-
cess wherebv we can grant zoning or potential zoning but before a building permit is
given, a Precise Plan must be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Looking at the Precise Plan or the map before us, I will say I do not like it. I think
there could be a better arrangement worked out on this. Dumping a lot of traffic into
long cul-de-sac street is not good. It is chopped up. Do not like alignment. I
nk in planning the actual map, more thought could be given to these items.
Councilman Kayo I have had benefit of Block Study No. 41 approved January, 1956
while this hearing has been going on. Block Study shows most
of the thinking of Planning Commission on what to do with general area or possible solu-
tion to the area south of the Wash. There were several points raised in regard to traffic
situation here and what is done with rest of property. Vanderhoof is a 601 street which
drops to 521. You would have to bring a considerable amount of traffic through residential
area and it was not intended on the original Block Study for this area to be anything but
R-1 and when the street pattern laid out there was no provision for an increased load.
If anything done to allow a large concentration of people or houses we should consider
shutting off access of Vanderhoof Drive. Area from Plateau Drive west left in R-1. This
matter came up in public hearing on Over All Master Plan and Mr. Daniels requested that
he be heard at that time. fie came back and acted on different portions of the map in
sections and many of the changes put inhere were not in accordance with Whitnall & Asso-
ciates. I do not believe that the Planning Commission had anythinn tc ::o with this, it
was the action of the City Council. There was some consideration. 'or all of this as R-3.
Opposed portion of that which went along with part of property up Uere, but at that time
we left exact line of this location of R-3 to Engineering DeparJ:lent. We also had some
question as to alignment of Walnut Creek Wash. We may have .:.:i the mistake of putting
R-3 south of the Wash in this area. I believe that the -,c'�icns were not on the advise
of the Planning Commission but merely an act of the City Council and now we have to look
at work done to see if it was feasible. I think we have worked into position here by
going ahead with Block Study because of potential zoning and dangers to area with a larg®
concentration of people brought in here.
•uncilman Van Horn„ I go along with the thinking of Councilman Kay. I think we have
taken up enough time and should like to have it held for further
study and perhaps it could be altered to the best interests of all concerned.
Council:rian Brown: I agree with Councilman Sperline that the lot lay -out is not
good if it is ever considered for R-3. Whatever we consider,
this needs much further study.
Motion by Councilman Van Horn, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that Zone Change
No. 62, in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract No. 22263, be held over for further
study.
It was consensus that a study meeting be held the evening of Monday, March 5, 1956 at
7:30 P.M. to further consider these matters.
C. u. 2-27-56
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION Mayor Hurst stated that this the time and place for
NO.,882 public hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 882.
Vacating portion of Valinde Ave. Vacating portion of Valinda Avenue. Location:
PRECISE PLAN NO. 65 No-tth. of Walnut Creek Wash and SE of Glendora Avenue
ADOPTED Precise Plan No. 65.
There was no testimony forthcoming on this matter, the hearing was declared closed.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by :;ouncilrrian Van Horn that Resolution of Intention
No. 882 be adopted and the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary Ordinance.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Brown, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: None
46t Voting: Councilman Sperline
TENTATIVE MAP Tentative Maps of Tract No. 22669 were presented by the City
TRACT NO. 22669 Engineer. Location: South of Puente Avenue, west of Azusa
Meeker Land Company Avenue. 20 Acres - 65 Lots - Area District II. Recmivaended
APPROVED for approval by the Planning Commission at the meeting of Feb-
ruary 15, 1956. Recommendations of the Planning Commission and
City Engineer were read by Mr. Gerschler as follows:
1) That all lots conform to Area District II requirements.
2) That all street improvements outlined in Section 49 of Ordinance No. 225, including
utilities, be installed accordingly and meet the approval of the City Engineer, this
to include sanitary sewers and improvements for street parcels shown as "Not a Part."
3) Provide 51 storm drain easement along southerly line of Lot_No. 58.
4) That subdivider request the opening of one foot lots in Tract No. 20528 and 20536
for street and highway purposes.
5) That the disposition of any existing buildings be sho t::n.
6) That driveway turnarounds be provided for Lots 29 through 38.
7) Dedicate vehicular access rights from Puente Avenue to Lots No. 1 and 64 and 28.
Lots No. 7 and 8 be so revised as to front on Danes Drive.
40 (This item was put forth in motion of Planning Commission at time of hearing.)
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried that Tentative Map of
Tract No. 22669 be approved subject to recommendations of City Engineer and Planning
Commission, with correction to made on Recommendation No. 7, Lot No. 64 instead of Lot
No. 65 as read into original recommendations.
TENTATIVE MAP Location: West of Barranca Street, between Cortez
TRACT NO. 22520 Street and Sunset Hill Drive. 6 Acres - 12 Lots -
Residential Investment Co. Area District III. Recommended for approval by the
HELD OVER Planning Commission on February 15, 1956.
Mr. Gerschler stated that applicant had requested that this Tentative Map be held over.
It was consensus that this request be granted.
►l
TENTATIVE MAP Tentative Maps of Tract No. 21014 were presented by
TRACT NO. 21014 the City Engineer. Location: South side of Cortez
Tenman Enterprise, Inc. Street, east of Barranca Street. 24 Acres - 47 Lots -
(Sidney Weitsman) Area District IV. Recommended for approval by Planning
HELD OVER Commission on February 15, 1956.
Recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Engineer were read by Mr. Gerschler
as follows:
1) That all lots conform to Area Districe IV or that Area District granted by Lone
Change No. 64.
2) That all street improvements outlined in Section 49 of Ordinance No. 225, in-
cluding utilities, be installed accordingly and meet the approval of the City
Engineer.
That 11 lot at Southeast end of "B" Street be dedicated to the City of West
46 Covina in Fee Simple.
4) That excavation and grading in the tract conform to requirements of Ordinance
No. 384.
5) That` slope easements be /granted where necessary/ and _d/edicat d/ on the final map.
a . o F t2rihL tc. ✓ �G If C .� (�,C- !2 a) c2.tf4:
Mr. Gerschler stated that an additional recommendation should have provision for certi-
fication on Final Map in that Lot No. 47 is subject to flood hazard if not properly
graded.
Councilman Kay: On this map before us the zoning case is still pending. Some
questions as to whether itconformed to Area District IV or
not and it depends on area requirements put upon the property. I do not think we can
act intelligently when zoning is still in flux on this property. It was referred back
to the Planning Commission for further consideration and recommendations. I believe
it should be held over until zoning is resolved. There is zoning in case involved and
before we can act upon this we should know what the requirements are in regard to zoning.
City Attourney: There is some merit as to considerinE; the map in the light of
zoning and I think it would be in order to continue this until
next regular meeting of the Council on March 12, 1956. If the Council has not heard
from the Planning Commission in that time, they can go ahead and consider the zoning.
Councilman Kay: This map, at the present time, does not begin to conform with
legal requirements of the property, nor with the present ordin-
lace we have on the books.
Engineer for applicant Is it the opinion of the Council that once the legal aspects
(Mr, 2red Pack) are completed they would go along with map so that we could
proceed with engineering?
Councilman Kay: Until we know what is required in the zoning ordinance
cannot conform to the map.
Mayor Hurst: I do not believe you could safely go ahead with the engineering.
I believe there would be a certain amount of risk involved. It
was an original 3 to 2 vote and who knows one of us might get "knocked off" and it might
change the vote.
Motion by Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried that Tentative
Map of Tract No. 21014 be held over for further consideration until regular meeting of
March 12, 1956.
--12--
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS Upon.recommendation of City Engineer motion by Coun-
PRECISE PLAN NO. 17 cilmen Brown, seconded by Councilman.Sperline and
(Shell Service Station) carried that street improvements at NW corner of
APPROVED Citrus and Workman be accepted and authorization
be ;given for the release of. United Pacific Insur-
ance Company Bond No. 240558 for $300QO.00.
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS Upor'i recommendation.of the City Engineer motion by
TRACT NO. 18575 Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Brov.n
APPROVED and :tarried that, street improvements in Tract No.
18575 located at SIV corner of Merced and Hollenbeck
be accepted and authorization be given for the release of Pacific Indemnity Company- Bond
No. 220370 in the amount of $55,000.00, but subject to receipt of $225.00 for street
signs not installed to date.
PAYMENT ON EKISTING Upon -recommendation of the Sanitation Engineer motion
PRIMBURSEVIENT AGREEMENTS by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Sperline
Nos. 1-3-6-7-8-9 that paymeAt on existing reimbursement agreements
APPROVED No. 1, 3, 6, 79.8.and 9 be approved.
(No money collected to date from,Nos. 2, 4, 5 and .10.) Motion Passed on roll call as
follows:
Ayes: CouncilmenKey, Van Horn, Sperline, Brown;'Burst
Noes: None
Absent: None
ACCEPT SEPufi+R FACILITIES Uoon reeommendation'of the Sanitation Engineer motion
TRACTS NO. 18450 AND 21509 by Councilman Sperline seconded by Councilman Brown
APPROVED that sawer,facilities be accepted on Tracts No. 18450
and �1509. Location: SE corner Merced Avenue and
Glendora Avenue and authorization be given for release'of Pacific Employer's Insurance
Company Bond No. 11-B-45314 in the amount of $18,000.006'. Motion pass::u on roll call as
follows -
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van 4orn, Sperline, Brown, H,.rst
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION NO. 893 City Attorney presented and read Resolution No. 893
Easement for Drainage Purposes "A RESOLUTIONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
Zone Variance No. 104 COVINA., CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING EASEM= GRANT DEED
• (Benapfl) COVERING REAL PROPERTY IN.THE CITY OF IVEEEST COVINA
ADOPTED FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES (.Benapfl)." Location: Rear
.of St. Christopher's Church in Lot 11 Tract 19866,
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Van horn that Resolution No. 893. be
adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen. Kay, Van Horn, Brown,. Sperlin e
Noes: None
Absent: None
--13-- ...
RESOLUTION NO. 894
Easement for Drainage Purposes
Zone Variance No. 104
(St. Christopher's Church)
ADOPTED
opeher's Street intersection)."
City Attorney presented and read Resolution No. 894
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ACC-7PTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED
COVERING REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FOR
DRAINAGE PURPOSES (on St. Christopher's Church property
for storm water outlet from Sandy Hook and St. Chris -
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Brown, Sperline
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Hurst
RESOLUTION NO. 895 City Attorney presented and read Resolution No. 895
Granting Sanitary Sewer Easement "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
Tract No. 21331 COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING EASEMENT DEED TO THE
(Hepner Development Corp.) CITY OF WEST COVINA (Hepner Development Corp.)."
ADOPTED Location: North end of Manzanita Avenue, north of
lnut Creek Parkway Lot 17 & 18 Tract 21331. Motion by Councilman Van Horn, seconded
y Councilman Brown that Resolution No. 895 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Brown, Sperling.
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Hurst
RESOLUTION NO, 896 City Attorney presented and read Resolution No. 896
Granting Sanitary Sewer Easements "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
TRACT NO. 930 COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING EASEMENT DEED TO THE
(Hepner) CITY OF WEST COVINA (Hepner)." Location: North end
ADOPTED of Manzanita Avenue, north of Walnut Creek Parkway,
southerly 20 ft. of a portion of Lot 42 Tract 930
which is north of Tract No. 21331: Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman
Van Horn that Resolution No. 896 be adopted. Motion passed on roll cull as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Brown, Sperline
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Hurst .
RESOLUTION NO. 897 .City Attorney presented and read Resolution No. 897
ACCEPT GRANT DEED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
Street and Highway Purposes COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING GRANT DEED COVERING REAL
Zone Variance #135 PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FOR STREET AND HICH-
• (Schultz) WAY PURPOSES (Schultz)." Location: Glendora Avenue &
ADOPTED State Street. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by
Councilman Kay that Resolution No. 897 be adopted.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Brown, Sperline
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Hurst
RESOLUTION NO. 898 City Attorney presented and read Resolution No. 898
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
MUNICIPAL PURPOSES COVINA$ C.'LIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL
(Reyes) ESTATE FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES; FOR THE EXECUTION OF
ADOPTED NECESSARY AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND ACCEPT-
ING GRANT DEED COVERING SAID REAL PROPERTY." ($4250.00)
Location: On Sunset Avenue for extension of Cameron Avenue between Sunset and Orange Ave.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Kay that Resolution No. 898 be adopted.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
--14--
R 898 REP MP Cont'd.
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, ]gown Sperline
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Hurst
RESOLUTION NO. 899
GRANTING SANITARY SEWER EASTT
Precise Plan No. 34
and
Zone Change No. 33
(Zuo)
ADOPTED
City Attorney presented and read Resolution No, 899
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING EASEMENT DEED TO THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA (Zug)." Location: W ! of Lot 5 Block
21 Phillip Tract at NE corner of Azusa Ave. and Work-
man Ave. Motion by Councilman Van Horn, seconded by
Councilman Brown that Resolution No. 899 be adopted.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Brown, Sperline
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Hurst
RESOLUTION NO. 900 City Attorney presented and read Resolution No: 900.
EXPRESSING GRATITUDE "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
FOR SERVICE COVINA, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING GRATITUDE TO J. HAROLD
J. Harold Decker DECKER FOR HIS FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF
ADOPTED WEST COVINA." Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded
by CouncilmaL Kay that Resolution No. 900 be adopted.
Motion passed on roll call as follows: ,
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Sperline, Brown, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION NO. 901 City Attorney presented and read Resolution No. 901
WEED ABATEMENT "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
ADOPTED COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND DECLARING THAT
WEEDS GROWING UPON PORTIONS OF CERTAIN STREETS, SIDE-
WALKS AND CERTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA TO BE A NUISANCE A11D DECLARING
THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER THE ABATEMENT TH` `03' AT THE COST OF T11TE PROPERTY
OWNER AS PROVIDED BY LAW." (Municipal Weed Abatement Act). Tviotion by Councilman Kay,
seconded by Councilman Van Horn that Resolution No. 901 be adopted. Motion passed on
roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Sperline, Brown, Hurst
•Noes: None
Absent: None
SECOND READING Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman
ORDINANCE NO. 457 Sperline, and carried, that second and final reading
Precise Plan No. 66 (1405) be given to Ordinance No. 457 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
Hoyle, Hoyle, Peterson and Ebbutt CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTED ADOPTING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMLTT OF CER-
TAIN PROPERTIES IN SAID CITY, PURSUANT TO .THE PRO VI-
SIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 147 OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AND AMENDING SAID ORDINANCE NO. 147
(Hoyle, Hoyle, Peterson and Ebbutt Location: SE side of Glendora Avenue between Westcove
Place and Vine Avenue)." Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Sperline and
carried that reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Sperline,
seconded by Councilman Brown that Ordinance No. 457 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call
as follows:
Ayes: Couneiln.en Kay, Van. Horn, Sperline, 3rown, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: None
--15--
SECOND READING Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Sperline and
ORDINANCE NO, 458 carried that second and final reading be given to Ordinance No. 458
Sales & Use Tax "AN ORDINANCE, OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, IMPOSING A
ADOPTED CITY SALES AND USE TAX; PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE BY THE STAmF
BOARD OF 1,`-,UALIZ.ATION OF iLL FUNCTIONS INCIDENT TO TiE% :2,DIJ[INISTRA-
TION OPERATION AND COLLECTION OF THE Sl:1:�ES- .=;ND USE TAX HURLBY II4`POSED; SUSPENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCES NOS. 369 AND 42` DURING SUCH TIME AS THIS ORDINAid(" IS OPERATIVE;
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS 1E'REOF." Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by
Councilman Sperline and carried that reading of the. body of the ordinance be waived_. Mo-
tion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Kay that Ordinance No. 458 be adopted.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay,.Van Horn, Sperline, Brown, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: None
FIRST READING City Attorney presented and read Ordinance No. 459
RDINANCE NO. 459 "AN ORDINANCE OF `IHE.CITY COUNCIL OF 'IHE CITY OF WEST
efining powers and establishing COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF CHIEF
office of Chief Finance Officer FINANCE OFFICER AND DEFINING THE POWERS AND DUTIES
T11ER-ZLOF." Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by
Councilman Sperline and carried, that Ordinance No. 459 be given its.first reading.
BID AWARDED City Engineer: "We have checked this bid and find it in order a
Tilt Bed Trailer previous bid taken on a trailer was for $3100.00 and that had a
flat bed 76" wide;. Our new specifications called for 82" wide
Flat bed in order to accommodate tractor tracks as well as roller and that accounts
for the small increase in price. I would recommend that the bid received be accepted."
City Manager: "I would recommend that the bid received for this trailer be
accepted subject to'availability of funds in traffic safety fund."
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Sperline that bid cf Brown -Bevis In-
dustrial Company in the amount of $3,250.00, for Tilt -Bed Trailer, ': accepted as per
recommendations of the City Engineer and City Manager. Motion passed on roll. call as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Sperline, Brown, HuTst
Noes: None
Absent: None
ATTENDANCE OF CITY MANAGER Upon request of City Manager that he be permitted
ANNUAL SPRING CONFERENCE OF to attend this conference, motion by Councilman
CITY MJ.JNAGERS Brown, seconded by Councilman Sperline that this
League of California Cities request be granted and authorization be given for
Anaheim, California the expenditure of necessary and reasonable funds.
APPROVED Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Sperline, Brown, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: None
TREASURERS REPORT Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Sperline that
January, 1956 the City Treasurers report for the month of January, 1956 be
APPROVED accepted to be filed for the record. Motion passed on roll call
as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Sperline, Brown, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: None
-16--
Councilman Kay: I have a question which I want to bring up in regard to possible
comments from our Secretary of Planning Commission and our City
Manager in what has been done in the past six months in the field of our planning work.
I am wondering if there has been any use for the consulting services of Whitnall &
Associates as had been stipulated that the Planning Department may use if they found
it necessary, or any other outside help?
Mr. Gerschler: We have not used the services of an outside consultant and at
the time it was also stated that I should contact the Regional
Planning Commission as well as our former outside consultant. We had bids on one specific
project and it was too high for consideration. We were able to go to the Regional Plan-
nir- Commission to get the same job accomplished at no cost
City Manager: This Department is still in the process of development and I do
not feel I can make any reports or recommendations at this time.
ere was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.Ivl,
ROBERT FLOTTEN
10,
JOE BURST, MAYOR