03-12-1956 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TEE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
March 12, 1956
The meeting was called to order by -Mayor Hurst at 8:15 P.M. in the West Covina City Hall
with the Rev. Koosman giving the invocation.
Present: Mayor Hurst, Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Sperline
Absent: Councilman Brown, City Treasurer
Others:, City Manager, City Clerk and Ass°t. Administrative Officer, City Engineer, City
Attorney, Mr. V. Walters, Chief Finance Officer; Mr. M.C. Gerschler, Planning
Department; ter. W. Nollac, Sanitation Engineer.
MINUTES APPROVED The Minutes of the regular meeting of Februrary 27, 1956 were
approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
IRITTEN CONMIUNICATIONS City Clerk.presented and read communication dated. March 8, 1956
from Claude V. Read and William P. Knight requesting appeal
from the Planning Commission decision on Zone Change Noo72 and Precise Plan No. 78 to the
City Council.
It. was consensus of opinion that this matter be set for public hearing at regular meeting
of April 9, 1956.
City Clerk presented and read petition dated March 5, 1956 requesting annexation of prop-
erty -located on the southern boundary of West Covina approximately 450 feet south on
Willow Street and 750 feet on Rockway Drive. This petition contained some thirteen (13)
names and was submitted by F.L. Dougherty of 14537 Rockway Drive Baldwin Park.
City Clerk stated this area was just below Wash, leading from Willow Avenue, west and is
inhabited territory.
Motion by 'Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that this request
for annexation be referred to the Planning Commission for report.
City Clerk presented and read petition dated March 1, 1956 containing some forty-two (42)
signers living on Glendora between 600 and 900 block between Service and Vine. This
petition favored change in zoning to commercial zoning.
Motion by Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that this petition
be referred to the Planning Commission to be considered with the over all study of area
act on it with this report.
DATES SET FOR HEARRING ON THE FOLLOWING: April 9, 1956
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Van Horn and carried that proposed
amendment to Comprehensive Master Pl4n of West Covina Civic Center be set for hearing
on April 9, 1956. Location: South side of Garvey Avenue between .Sunset Avenue and
Orange .Avenue. (City Initiated) Recommended for approval by the Planning Commission
on 3/7/56.
Motion by Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that proposed
amendment of Zone Map adopted by Ordinance No. 410 in regard to zoning designations to
the center line of Streets, Alleys, Washes, Etc., be set for hearing on April 9, 1956.
(City Iniated). Recommended for approval by Planning Commission on 3/7/56.
C.C. 3-12-56
Motion by Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that Precise Plan
and Reclassification No. 76 (1405) be set for hearing on April 9, 1956, C.J. Hurst, Jr..,
Applicant, Location: SW corner of Merced Avenue and Sunset Avenue. Request adoption of
Official Precise Plan and C-1 zoning. Existing zone: R-A-1. Potential C-1. Recommended
for approval by Planning Commission on 3/7/56.
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Hurst announced that this.the time and place for public
ZONE CHANGE NO. 59 hearing on Zone Change No. 59 and Precise Plan No. 64. Loca-
and tion: SW corner of Workman Avenue and Vincent Avenue. Re -
PRECISE PLAN NO.•64 quest: R-P.(Residential-Professional) Postponed at request
Lawrence Moser of applicant. -Maps were presented by the City Engineer.
HELD OVER Mayor Hurststated that this had been referred back to the
Planning Commission on January 9, 1956 for report. On January
25, 1956 the applicant requested this matter be held over for an indefinite period.
60 Gerschler- There is no further report from the Planning `Cornnmission on
this matter.
All those wishing to present testimony on this matter were sworn in by the City Clerk.
Mr. P. Gordon, attorney for applicant, spoke as follows: "I would like to state that
because of the number of times this matter has come before the Planning Commission, and
now for the second time it is before the Council, that .it might be helpful to the Council
if I briefly review the evidence that took -place when this was first before the Planning
Commission on October 19, 1955 and also in regard to the Block Study to be made of this
area. This matter was held over until meeting of November 16, 1955 for purpose of con-
sidering the Block Study, At.that time it was continued to complete the study until
December 7, 1955 at which time there was a hearing held. At the conclusion of this
hearing,'there was this dispostion made by the Planning Commission in the form of three
(3) motions, Precise Plan No. 64 and Zone Change No. 59 be recommended for disapproval
on the grounds that it was not compatible with the surrounding development and will con-
stitute spot zoning; motion to the affect that the matter be appealed to the City Council
by the applicant and proposed Block Study No. 37 should be presented to the Council for
its consideration. By way of enlightenment, at this particular time, it was in the mind
of the Planning Commission that this matter was to be brought to the City Council in..'
light of Block Study. The third motion was that Block Stud No. 37.should appear on the
agenda of the meeting of December 21. December 21, 1955 the Block Study was before the
Planning Commission and held over for further consideration. When this matter was be-
fore the City Council you will recall the apparent approval by the property owners
Mr. Authur, immediately to the south of the applicants property, on the basis of the
entire area being zoned R-P and also Mr. Frith. Mr. Roarty expressed opposition to the
r all zone but was not adverse to just particular section as R-P. The Council dis-
ed of the matter by referring it back to the Planning Commission for its considera-
tion of the application in the light of the Block Study that was still under consider-
ation by them, with the suggestion that.they resubmit to the Council as soon as possible
their recommendations upon- completion of this Block Study. This came before the Planning
Commission on January 18, 1956p At that time, they made the decision that the City
Council be advised that on the basis .of. action of the ,Commission taken on December 7, 1955,
disapproving the application, that they considered they did'not have any matter before them
for consideration because they decided they would not complete the Block Study and the rec-
ord was self-explanatory. While this Council expected the Planning Commission would relate
decision on the applicants zone change the Planning Commission saw fit not to complete its
work and now we are once again before the Council on the merits of the application of ap-
proval for Precise Plan and Zone Change. I will take the liberty to refer to some of the
expressions of the Planning Commission members in connection with the application before
it. On Deccrricer 7, 1955, Commissioner Towner stated, "It appears that this is a logical
location for R-P zone and it does not seem to me to establish a precedent for the rest of
Vincent Avenue which is single family dwellings for the .most part." This quotation is
only in part but relevant as to the attitude of Mr. Towner in regard to R-P zoning as log-
ical and in keeping with the area.
-- 2--
C.C. 3-12-56
Commissioner Green stated, "I think this Block Study will take care of most of the ob-
jections." Apparently, he had before him a Block Study, Commissioner Morgan stated,
"I think this plan looks good as a whole," Commissioner Twnners stated, "We have de-
layed the application twice for a decision to enable us to get this plan before us and
we now find there is substantial oppostion to this plan from property owners,". This
is probably what decided the Commission to make a decision in spite of the fact of fur-
ther Block Study considerations. Commissioner Green stated, i?We could hold a public:
hearing on the revised precise plan and entire rezoning of this area at the same
This is the reason why it was not held in abeyance. Dr. Moser requested "action tonigh.t."
I make mention of these particular points because the Planning Commission did have in mind
that this matter would come before the Council for consideration and at the same time they
Were giving consideration to this Block Study for its consideration.'and yet they did not
complete that phase of the. work. One of the motions of the tJcmmission bears coimrient at
this point. "Block Study No. 37 be placed on the regular age.ada at the next regular
meeting of the Planning Commission, December 21, 1955, for consideration. In, the interim
r Planning Secretary should contact the owner or owners of the properties involved to
ermine their attitude and position with respect to this Block Study." Thi.Y matter came
before the Planning Commission on December 21, and Mr. Gerschler stated at't,L-at time that
he had met with the property owners, except two, and found substantial agree.ment on ,art
of owners, and oppostion from people outside of the area. Most of opposition. was to
change of zoning but supporters in favor of zoning and layout. The matter would appear
to have favorable consideration from all parties involved in.the particular area, al-
though it was opposed from people outside of the area.
The matter before the Planning Commission apparently was considered with the question
of whether or not the frontage road in front of this property was proper or not,
Mr. Gerschler was of the opinion that the frontage road was not necessary. At the
meeting of January 18, 1956 regarding Block Study Noo 37,,,Commiesioner Green stated,
"If the Council should decide contrary to out denial, it would be referred back to us.
It appears now that we should take no action.,,
The Planning Commission is apparently waiting for action from the Council and thus have
taken no action.on the Block Study.
I think this application is something that represents improvements for this property,
having in mind the property and its present condition which consists of an old outmoded
house. This would be an improvement to the area having in mind the necessary lands ded-
icated for road widening and improvements and a new structure on the site. The photo-
graphs which I have submitted show the present structure and present condition and it
is not desirable.for a piece of property, There will be a new structure on this land
which would be in keeping with architectural plan and design of the surrounding resi-
tial area. I would also like to submit photographs of a medical building in a rem
ential area (near here) which is very well kept, nice appearing and„this application
would be in keeping with such a building. I would also like to submit photographs of a
similar building in Covina in, much the same situation as here. (Architectural drawing
of tho proposed medical. building for this site was submitted by Mr. Gordon.) One of the
architects is here this evening and would like to make some comments on this matter. I
think it is only fair to say there cannot be any real substantial oppostion. to this zone
change particularly as we are dealing with C@1.which is on the Garvey side of this area.
R-P would soften the approach to the R-1 area and would be a buffer to the R-1 property.
It is worthy also to note that Dr. Moser is a medical man and family physician who has
been in this area five years. He has been in the City center for this period of time and
is interested in serving the people. The matter of a new location will present opportun-
ity to e-.�:parid his facilities and give better I service to the people. Dr. Moser has pre-
pared a diaQ;:�:::�, which I present for your perusal, depicting the .number of families he
has been ser-r.ng in this area. It is an interesting study made within a one mile radius
of the proposed site of this zoning application and shows 198 nort'1'of Garvey which he
is serving and 128 south of.Garvey or approximately 1276 persons., Outside the one mile
area, there are 240 families,
m�3mv
C.C. 3-12-56 (ZC 59 & PP 64 Cont°d.)
This will show the real concentration of families served within one mile of the request
for zone change. It is an obvious fact that this city is short of medical practitioners
on basis of A.M.A. report and to develop this land for this purpose Dr. Moser is render-
ing a real public service. Dr. Moser enjoys a fine reputation in this area and is on
the staff at the Inter -Community Hospital and his application would be in keeping with
the best interests.of developing this property. I think this is a situation in which is
very possible for one to understand that the zone change is in keeping not only with Dr.
Moser°s desire, but in interests of the community to serve the .needs of the people for
medical service.
Mr. Pulver of 328 So. Dancove Drive, West Covina, architect, for firm J. Ho Maul
of Covina, stated as follows: "We are of the feeling from the architectural and
economic standpoint that this particular piece of property is not suited for residential
due to the C-1 on Garvey and the widening of Vincent to 100 feet north and south and
Workman as 80 foot street running east and west. We feel that the property, because of
Kcreased traffic at this corner, plus the C-1, would be better served as R@P. Pro-
sional use would allow buffer strip between C-1 and heavy traffic and residential area
around it. We would like to request that this application be granted."
City Clerk presented and read a communication dated March 12, 1956 from Norman G. Snyder,
M.D. and Paul B. Seymour, M.D. in favor of this application which stated in part "The
granting of such a zone change would be an admirable asset to the community as a whole.
The patient population distribution in relation to this particular corner, is such that
in making medical and dental facilities available to the residents of the area, you will
be satisfying their health requirements and performing a definite community service."
Mr. J. Syme, Jr. of 1021 Workman Avenue wished to go on record as being opposed to this
zone change for other than residential.
Mr. J. Cox of 1020 Teresa Street spoke in opposition. "I am not talking for everyone that
is here in opposition tonight and do not wish to give that impression. There was so much
loose talk regarding the Planning Commission. I was at many of these meetings and would
object to many things that have been said. It is my understanding there was more than one
Block Study. It was only partial testimony he (Mr. Gordon) gave and many things in oppo-
sition to what was said. I see no reason for all the statements of the Planning Commission
that they were approving any part of this. The pictures that have been presented by those
in favor we have not seen and it was stated there was an outmoded house on this property.
The last three or four weeks the yard has been cleaned up and it looks a lot better. We
are not worrying about looks of the house, that could be fixed up, but if not there is
still room for three residences and a lot of people like to live close to corners. I
believe the medical center at Irwindale is not quite as large as Dr. Moser°s plan. I
seen Precise Plan No. 64 showing two (2) buildings instead of one and do not see two
o the architects drawing. The Precise Plan does have two buildings, each 3200 square
feet. The medical center at Irwindale and Rowland has only one east end entrance and a
fence around it. It is only one building and feel it is less than 3200 square feet so
feel there is no comparison with a complete R-P corner proposed here and one at Rowland
and Irwindale. Planning Commission was not for further extension of this yet he (Mr.
Gordon) states that Mr. Arthur and Mr. Frith were in favor of this. Block Study would
include for them some R-P on their property. That is, extension of the corner. If
they do come in with R-P in front what is to prevent them stating they are closed off in
front and back and put something in that less desirable.4°
Mayor Hurst: You mention Workman frontage and room for three residences.
Is it Workman frontage you are mostly concerned with?
Mr. Cox: We are concerned with the whole corner. Faits and entrances
on Workman and. Vincent.
C. 0. 3-12-56 (ZC 59 & PP 64, Cont'd.
Mayor Hurst: If R-L frontage came along Workman, would that take away many
detrimental things?
Mr. Cox: If that came.in there would be no room for R-P building.
Mr. W.M. Proto of 207 N. Mirada spoke i.i opposition.-, "I purchased my home here six months
ago with assurance' that the City of West. Covina would adhere to existing "zoning as oatlined
by Master Plan. After looking at the Plan I can see no .reason, for'rezoning this - ..00erty
and feel it should remain residential;"
Mr. Roarty of 1015 Workman stated "For the benefit of those present, I am against any
change here whatsoever. I have property adjacent connecting on -west facing Workman and
is the only improved property connected with this parcel of land. On the west', there is
a vacant lot connecting with my property which if this is granted, why can't -whey request
a zone change and also property on south request zone change? This zone ch.v;...P. is as.
Aiosely related to these properties as 'bread and butter % If he (Dr. Tioseuj:gets this,
Jpey will get theirs. I have lived here since 1948. I have seen. the growth 'Ind wondered
how it would grow. Built my home in the middle of a half acre. There are scr,a® smaller
homes around but they are nice homes. If this goes through, there will be a tag on .nine
to sell it, and I will sell to black or white."
Mr. R. Speer of 1014 Mirada stated as follows: "I just bought my home six months ago and
area residential. No desire for any apartment buildings to overlook my rear yard at any
time."
Mr. Lauder of 1033 W. Workman stated as follows: "Who replaces the 'out of my pocket'
cost of the market value I lose on my home as a residence? One house trying to sell that
is not selling because of this possibility of looking into a business zone. Suppose I
wanted to sell and if this goes through, I will. Who puts money back in my pocket that
has been taken.from me? There will be a loss in the market value of my home and unless
the doctor wants to make up that difference to me, I am out, The doctor is thinking of
his professional practice. Of all the people I have talked to around there, I nave run
into only one of his patients. We are not questioning the doctor as an individual at all,
we are talking about zoning. There is a tremendous amount of front footage on this too,
and in this case I do not see expanding from present core of business outward. I cannot
see building outward. The C-1 potential -.is 500 feet from this property and closer to the
center of business here. There is the angle of city revenue. It would take four single
family residences in there. You have no sales tax revenue in thin business."
Mr. Frith, owner of property south towards Garvey, facing Vincent, spoke as follows:
"It does not make any difference what they do here. I bought this property 14 years ago
it is residential and agricultural and I can bring in pigs, cows, etc. I am a rancher
can bring it hogs, sheep and other such things as it is still residential and agricul-
tural, if they prefer it."
Mr. 16 Johnson, of 1036 Teresa Street stated as follows: "I think it might be well with
the people here in opposition tonight that they be asked to stand so that the Council may
see their numbers. Obviously many people have not said anything to oppose this and think
Council should take note of. the opposition."
It was requested that all those who were in opposition'to stand.
There was no further testimony presented, the hearing was declared closed.
m-5oo
C.C. 3-12-56 (ZC 59 & PP 64, Cont°d,)
Councilman Van Horns I think that the thing that corms before us now is whether
we grant zoning on this corner or not, If we feel in favor
that we will allow R-P zoning here that should be designated and sent back to the Planning
Commission with recommendation that they alter this Precise Plan to conform with medical
centers in the vicinity, If this is not zoned there are no steps to be taken. But as
to this plan before us, I do not think it is desirable. Not correct distance set -backs,
and one thing and another,
Councilman Kay: I think we have a basic problem before us here in zoning as
far as the area is concerned. In considering this one zone
change and nothing else, any property south until commercial zoning on Garvey, would be
in violation in principle to grant a change on one bit of property like this, If we de-
cided general trend from Workman and Garvey should be change from residential and R-A
to heavier than R-1 then the plan has some merit for consideration. But before we can
consider this plan favorable, we would have to first determine whether we would want to
nge the area to other than R-1,
Councilman Sperline: I recall when one of these medical offices came up many months
ago and I was much in favor of that and in favor of units sim-
ilar to this. Neighborhood doctors have been pushed back and I think_ we need them in the
community. As far as the layout, I am not an architect and do not pretend to be. Con-
sidering this particular piece of property we would not make there any more of a 'spot
zone' than in other places. We have taken individual pieces before. It is anyone's right
to ask for zoning. He may not get it but he is entitled, to public hearings. In my mind
on a major and local street .such as this we should have a unit of this type. It is better
than the possibility of service station,
Mayor Hurst: I think we should indicate whether we want heavier than R-1
in this area. There has to be a point beyond which you will
go and a point to which you will go, ghat do you want to do about it? One thing you
people should keep in mind is that whether or not this zoning is granted, Vincent is going
to be heavily trafficked and_ will go diagonally across property that is now south of shop-
ping center and will hit Glendora a bit south of the creek on Vdalnut Creek Wash, This
will be a main stem from Foothill direct south. Some of the same things are going to be
there as regarding Glendora and it is too bad there was not enough foresight to back you
all up to these streets, but we did not. I think someone has been very negligent along
the line that a Block Study has not been made,
Councilman Kay: In my own mind in weighing this case I have looked at property
and think there is much to be said on both sides, but until we
make decision of changing this area, I do not think we could grant this as an individual
�e,
Mayor Hurst: I think we should have facts to make this decision. Think we
should indicate what out thinking is here. I think we should
indicate to the Planning Commission, if sent back, that zoning for this R-P area would be
seriously considered if proposal is presented with a Block Study, I think we should get
a consultant in on this and give it some real consideration. Think there are good points
on both sides. Mr. Petrie, do you think you could get services of a consultant?
City Manager: There is no question we could do that. Would it be for this
particular problem or planning program in general? This has
been under consideration and have contacts that I have made. If you desire, I could ex-
pedite this and make a recommendation in short order,
Councilman Kar: I believe this would be a very logical approach to it,
C;C. 3-12=56 ZC_".59 & PP 649 Cont°d.)_
Motion,by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Sperline and carried that Zone Change
No. 59 and Precise Plan No. 64 be held over pending a report from a recognized planning
consultant on the area at the SW corner of Workman Avenue and Vincent Avenue and exten-
ding 1000 "feet from .the extension of Vincent and Workman Avenues.
City Manager: I_do.not know how soon consultants can come in. I would
like to know when you might like this.
Councilman Kay I think we could all benefit by whatever recommendations
they make and they should give us a discussion of theory
behind this.• I also believe the -Council must reach a decision within forty (40)
days..
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Hurst stated that this is the time a d place for
PRECISE PLAN NO. 72 public hearing on Precise Plan No. 72 an'_a l_-tclassified
and Use Permit No. 12. Location: North side of Workman
OLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 12 Avenue, west of Azusa Avenue. Request p_r-aission for
William" C."Hart, Jr. semi -private swim school. Maps were pre. e.r-ted by City
REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMM. Engineer. Mr. Gerschler read Resolution No. 338 and
339 of the Planning Commission. Recommenda�ions o�
the Planning Commission were read as follows:
l)""That all street improvements outlined in Section 49, 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.
2), That all buildings and signs not exceed one story or fifteen (15) feet, whichever is
the lesser, in height.
3) That all.•exterior lighting be installed and maintained in a manner eliminating any
nuisance to adjacent residential property.
4) That adequate water supply and fire protection be provided as required by Ordinance
No 237 and Ordinance No. 315.
5)'.That all excavating and grading work conform to .provisions of Ordinance No. 384.
6). That all bonds, fees and deposits for improvements be posted before building permits
are issued.
7.) That a 6-'foot masonry wall be constructed along the westerly, northerly and easterly
• property lines.
8) That a 42" concrete masonry wall be constructed along the southerly property line.
9) That a Block :Study be approved for this area before permit is granted.
A11 those.wishing to present testimony in this matter were sworn in by the City Clerk.
Mr. Wm. C. Hart, Tr., of 1720 W. Moreland, Los Angeles, applicant, spoke as follows:
"I am a school teacher for the Los Angeles City System. I am proposing a semi -private
swim school to teach young children the art of swimming. Each child is supervised and
classes will .consist of 5 children to a class and one instructor. There will be rec-
reational periods for children learning to swim and in slower hours just recreational
swimming. I started to put this application in around December 1 and it was suggested
I wait.for contemplated Block Study. 'I held it off for awhile and then presented it to
the Commission. This matter was held over because of improper landscaping and for Block
Study. They did not know where the street would go through and Block Study showed that
it went "through this: property and - left out pool.
m�7A_
C.C. 3-12-56 (PP 72 & UUP 12'Cont°d.)
Mr. Wm. C. Hart, Jr. There was no particular objection as to the pool or
Precise.Plan only problem was fact that street is
going through. property involved. The owner says he cannot afford to run that street
through, and the original study before this one is what he based his planning on. I
feel I am being unduly held up on this deal. I understand that the Block Study should
be presented to the people of the neighborhood and understand it was just set up before
the Commission without any relation to people who own property around it.,,
Mr. Milhalkania of 1715 E. Workman spoke as follows: "My east boundary is the applicants
west boundary. Applicant proposes masonry wall along. boundary. I do not mind pool, pro-
viding applicant puts up different type of fence. I would prefer a Redwood fence -and
proper landscaping that will be cared for correctly all through the year."
Mr. Hart- "I would be willing to put in a Redwood fence and what-
ever height would be required. I would also be willing
o hire a gardener to see that the landscaping would be properly kept up at all times."
The City Clerk presented and read protests.regarding street plan as shown on new Block
Study, from Bernard H. Williams of 343 N. Azusa Avenue; Harold A. Bechtel of 1718 E.
Workman Avenue; Harold L., Johnson, Civil Engineer, on behalf of Mr. Beattie and Charles
and Mamie Zug.
Motion.by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Sperline and carried that Precise Plan
No. 72 and Unclassified Use Permit No.'12 be referred back to the Planning Commission to
recommend approval of this application, and with further recommendation that the Block
Study extend Fleetwell Avenue north of Workman Avenue and subject.to conditions of City
Engineer and Planning Department.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 62 Location- SW corner of Barranca Street and Garvey
Arthur M. Daniels Avenue. Request- R-3.' Existing zone: R-A. Po -
and tential R-3. Decision held over from hearing on
Junior Realty Company February 27, 1956.
DEFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMo
Motion by Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that Zone Change
No. 62 be referred back to the Planning Commission with the recommendations that they
hold proper hearings and give proper notification on this matter. There is certain
technical aspects here regarding the hearing. It is 'the feeling that another public
hearing is necessary. Applicant also wishes to present a different map or precise plan.
It was also stated as part of the motion that it is the consensus that in considering a
zone change of this nature from potential to firm the area involved should have a Precise
10an of development and not just a plan showing group of lots. Building sites should be
own with over all landscaping on property. It is in a neighborhood which could do a
lot of harm with blanket R-3 in area. If.R-3 is granted, it would have to be detailed.
Street align -anent not favorable. Vanderhoof Drive should be terminated and not have heavy
usage brought in by R-3.
Mayor Hurst "Not Voting"
TENTATIVE MAP Location- SW corner of Barranca Street and Garvey
TRACT NO. 22263 Avenue. Existing Zone; R-A, potential R-3. Decision
Arthur M. Daniels held over from February 27, 1956 in conjunction with
and Zone Change No. 62. Motion by Councilman Sperlin e,
Junior Realty Company seconded by Councilman Kay and Carried that Tentative
DENIED Map of Tract No. 22263 be denied.
C,C. 3-12-56
ZONE CHANGE NO. 64 Location: South side of Cortez Street, east of
In.conjunction with Tentative flap #21014) Barranca Street. Request: Reclassification to
Tenman Enterprises, Inc. Area District III. Existing Zone Area District
(Sidney Weitsman) IV. Denied by Planning Commission January 4,
APPROVED 1956. Appealed to City Council. After hearing
before City Council on January 30, 1956, City
Council gave tentative approval and returned the case to the Planning Commission .for
report. On March 7, 1956, Planning Commission reaffirmed denial. Decision held over
from hearing of January 30,1956. Maps were presented by City Engineer.
Mayor Hurst: Previous action was to approve this zone change
subject to tentative map.
Councilman Sperline stated, "In my opinion, we should grant this zone change and so
move, subject to Tentative Map of Tract No. 21014 and conditions connected therewith.
Otion seconded by Councilman Van Horn; Motion passed on roll call as follows-,
Ayes: Councilmen Van Horn, Sperline, Hurst
Noes:. Councilman Kay
Absent: Councilman Brown
TENTATIVE MAP Location: South side of Cortez Street east of
TRACT NO. 21014 , Barranca Street. 24 Acres - 47 Lots - Area Dis-
In conjunction with Z.C. #64) trict IV (III). Held over from February 27,
Tenmen Enterprises, Inc. 1956. Motion by Councilman Sperline, seconded
(Sidney Weitsman) by Councilman Van Horn that Tentative Map of
APPROVED Tract No. 21014 be approved subject to the rec-
ommendations of City Engineer and Planning Com-
mission.
1. That all lots conform to Area District IV, or that Area District granted
by Zone Change No. 64.
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.
3. That 1' lot at Southeast end of "B" Street be dedicated to the City of
West 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 dedicated on the
final map.
• 6. That Lot 47 on final map be shown as subject to flood hazard if not .
properly graded.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Van Horn, Sperline, Hurst
Noes:, Councilman Kay
Absent: Councilman Brown.
Councilman Kay: On this map as submitted, I believe it is vio-
lation of restriction on streets so far as slopes
go. Another consideration also is that this map is subject to Cut and Fill Ordinance
No. 384 regardless of what area it is in.
C.C. 3-12-56
TENTATIVE MAP Tentative Maps of Tract No. 22781 were presented by the
TRACT NO. 22781 City Engineer, Location: NW side of Van Horn Avenue be -
Tack B. Henney tween Merced and Elder Street. 3 Acres - 12 Lots - Area
APPROVED District I. Approved by the Planning Commission March 7,
1956. Recommendations of the Planning Commission and City
Engineer were read as follows:
1) That all lots conform to Area District I 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.
3) Dedicate vehicular access rights along Merced Avenue to Lot 2.
4Y That subdivider request the opening of one -foot lots in Tract No. 20834, for street
• and highway purposes.
5) That the disposition of existing buildings be shown.
6) That driveway turnarounds be provided for Lot 1.
7) That all excavating and grading work conform to the provisions of Ordinance No. 384.
8) That street improvements shall be installed on portion shown as "Not a Part" o:4 Van
Horn Avenue$ unless prior arrangements have been made.
Motion by Councilman Van Horn, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that Tentative Map
of Tract No. 21014 be approved subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and
Planning Commission.
TENTATIVE MAP Tentative Maps of Tract No. 22768 were presented by the
TRACT NO. 22768 City Engineer. Location: North side of Puente Avenue,
Munger and Lownes west of Azusa Avenue. 11.2 Acres - 39 Lots - Area District
APPROVED II. Approved by the Planning Commission on March 7, 1956.
Recommendations of the Planning Commission were read as
follows:
1) That all lots conform to Area District II requirements.
2) That all street improvements outlined in Section 49, Ordinance No. 225, including
utilities, be installed accordingly and meet the approval of the City Engineer,
• this to include sewers.
3) Provide 5-foot storm drain easement along westerly line of Lot 13.
-4) Dedicate vehicular access rights along Puente Street to Lots 1 and 39.
5)- That one -foot lot' at the westerly end of "A" Street be dedicated to the City of
West Covina in,fee simple.
6) That all excavating and grading work conform to the provisions of Ordinance No. 384.
7) That subdivider request abandoment of existing rights -of -way easements within the
subdivision.
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Van Horn and carried that Tentative Map
of Tract No. 22768 be approved subject to the recommendations of the Planning Com aission
and City Engineer.
C,C, 3-12-56
ABANDONMENT OF Motion by Councilman Van Horn, seconded by Councilman Kay
EASEMENTS IN AREA PROPOSED and carried that City Attorney bring in a Resolution author -
FOR TRACT NO. 22768 izing abandonment of 30 foot strip approximately 1000 feet
west of Azusa Avenue running northerly of Puenty Avenue,
TIME EXTENSION Upon recommendation of City Engineer motion by
FINAL MAP Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Van
METES & BOUNDS SUB. No, 135-105 Horn and carried that a time extension of one
M. S, Standage year, to September 13, 1956, be granted for .filing
(9/13/56) of final map on Metes and Bounds Sub, No, 135-105.
APPROVED Location: SW corner of Van Horn Avenue and Elder
Street,
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman
Sperline that Claims and Demands be paid subject
the approval of the Auditing Committee, Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kay, Van Horn, Sperline, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Brown
ORDINANCE FOR It was consensus of opinion that City Attorney be
MODIFICATION OF CUT & FILL authorized to bring in an ordinance modifying Cut'
and Fill Ordinance No, 284 in accordance with re-
port submitted to City Manager by, the City Engineer,
PERSONNEL SYSTEM Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman
Sperline and carried that City Manager proceed
with Personnel System investigation and report as discussed with Council at study meet-
. ing of March 5, 1956 ,
REFUND ON ELECTRIC PERMITS Motion by Councilman Van Horn, seconded by Council -
Bob Smith Electric Company man Sperline and carried that application for re -
.REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER fund on electric permits be referred to the City
Man alter f or prop er a ct ion, .
CITY°S PARTICIPATION OF Location: Rowland Avenue, east of Azusa Avenue,
LOWERING SECTION OF ROWLAND AVENUE Upon recommendation of City Engineer motion by
TRACT NO. 21159 Councilman Sperline, seconded by Councilman Kay
APPROVED that additional authorization be given for expen-
diture of $557.23, total $1,397.23, from street
•idening and lowering fund. Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilrmn Kay, Van Horn, Sperline, Hurst
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Brown
MARCH MEETING City Clerk stated there would be a meeting of
LEAGUE OF.CALIFORNIA CITIES League of California Cities on Thursday, March 15,
1956 at the Civic Auditorium, South Gate, Report
will be. -on Air Pollution Problem in Los Angeles Basin,
Motion by Councilman Sperline, Seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that meeting be
adjourned until Monday, March 19, 1956 at 8 P.M.
JOE HURST
ATTEST:
Robert Rotten
City Clerk