05-14-1956 - Regular Meeting - Minutesr�
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
May 14, 1956
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brown at 8:10 P'M. in the West Covina
city Hall with the Rev. Teensmeyer. giving the invocations
Present: Mayor Brown, Councilmen Key, Mottinger, CrumleY, Pittenger
Absent: City Treasurer
Others. City Manager; City Clerk and Ass't. Administrative Officer; City Attorney
City Engineer; Mr. M. Gerschler, Planning Department; Mr. W. Nollac,
Sanitation Engineer.
MINUTES The Minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of May 7, 1956 were
APPROVED approved as submitted.
ORAL Mr. W. Lynch extended an invitation to the members of Council,
CC101UNICATIONS on behalf of the Realty Board of the San Gabriel Valley to
attend a. luncheon on Monday, May 21, at 12 noon at the
Dinnerhorn Restaurant. Mr. Lynch stated that Mr. Walter Elieson will be the speaker.
City Clerk presented'a.nd read a written communication dated May 14, 1956 from
Mr. H. R. Baker, Jr., Secretary of the Covina Valley Board of Realtors also
extending an invitation in retard to this matter.
WRITTEN City Manager reported on a communication from Senators Knowland
COMMUNICATIGI-TS and Kuchel., and Congressman Hillings, acknowledging receipt
of a letter concerning flood control and storm drain matters
here, and that they will lend their whole hearted support to these matters to the
best interest of the community.
City Manager presented and read communication from Owen H. Lewis, Mayor of the
City of La Verne, dated May 99 1956, stating that the resolution of this Council
had been favorably received by the Council of La Verne and stating he City of
La. Verne Bs desire'to co-operate in mutual problems of the cities of the East
San Gabriel Valley.
City Manager stated that an extra agenda item in regard to'recreation as provided
• through district recreation in communities should be, if possible, heard at this
meeting. This item was designated as 30-A on the agenda.
City Clerk presented -and read a communication dated May 6, 1956,,from 9358th
Air Reserve Squadron, per Ray L. Sullivan, L t. Col. A.F. Reserve, extending
an invitati:-)n to Council to attend opening of permanent quarters in Covina on
Friday, May 18 from 7 to 11 P.M.
OPENING OF BIDS Location: Garvey and Sunset Avenues. Sealed bids were
PRECISE PLAN NO. 26 opened and .presented to the Council by the City Clerk,
West Covina Plaza and bid amounts read by the City Attorney., on the
following:
Frank Chutuk Construction Company Ontario Total Bid $27,lo8.11
Martin Kordick Arcadia " It - 26,597.95
M. Miller Company Los Angeles " " - 229621..19
J.P.S. Contracting Company Santa Ana " " 259811.61
George Dakovich Monterey Park " " 259616.10
O'Shaughness.y Construction Company Norwalk " " - 20961 4.97
Jackson -Hopkins Company, Inc. Bakersfield " " 249920.62
Spann and Kenton Construction Company i Nortn Hollywood " m 319641.09
C.C. 5-14-56
-2-
Motion by Councilman Pittenger seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that bids on
Precise Plan No. 26 West Covina Plaza be referred to the Sanitation Engineer,
City Engineer and City Manager for further study and recommendations to the Council.
PROTEST PETITION City Clerk presented and read a petition signed by forty --five
SIGNS (45) residents of the city, representing approximately twenty_
(Glendora Ave) three (23) families living on Bandy Avenue east of Glendora
Avenue and parallel to Glendora. This petition protested
installation of two electric signs on top of two buildings; namely Mexican Joe
and Venise Restaurants. The City Clerk stated that this had been checked with
the Building Department and did not seem to be in violation of any ordinance
• and permits had been issued to install both of these signs.
Councilman Pittenger: I have seen the signs referred to, and been in one
backyard to enable me to understand the situation as
presented in this petition. I believe these signs do create a nuisance to the
people. I believe these signs are in violation as ordinance reads no flasher
signs within the city and signs not to be more than one-story in height and I
believe that these are.
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that
City Manager be instructed to look into this matter and report back to the Council..
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Brown stated that this is the time
PROPOSED 1d4END ENT OF 'BONING and place for public hearing on PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE (Ordinance
(Ord. No. 147 & 325) No. 147 and 325 TO CREATE ZONE DESIGNA-
REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TION C-R (Commercial Restricted) (City
Initiated). Recommended for approval and
adoption by Planning Co:inission Resolution No. 365.
All those wishing to present testimony on this matter were sworn in by the City
Clerk.
Mr. H.R. Roberts, attorney for applicants of Zone Change No. 71, Precise Plan
and.Reclassifications No. ?3,74 and 75 stated: "My clients have before this body
• this evening Zone Change No. 71 and Precise Plan and Reclassifications No. 739 74,
75. These matters on which public hearing were held by the Planning Commission
on March 7, as against March 21 for proposed C-R Zone. There matters concern
the same property that is described in the proposed C•R zone. My clients have
a vital interest in this and suggest and ask Council hold public hearing on C-R
zone at the same time it considers other matters so that all matters can be before
Council at once and so that we do not repeat ourselves. I believe it would be
more efficacious that way.
City Attorney: Technically there is no connection between this zoning and
the four applications mentioned. This creates a new zone
which is not intended to apply to any particular property as yet. You must
determine whether or not you wish to create this zoning and then to what property
zoning might apply. You may, however, consider Mr. Roberts cases collectively.
Actually, Mr. Roberts, Council is talking about whether there shall be a new zone.
If they decide zone is not needed they would be taking a lot of unecessary infor-
mation on ,your particular matters.
C.C. 5-14-56
-3-
Mr. Roberts: The resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission does
describe our property.
City Attorney: I think the matter should be treated separately. You must
have the zoning before you can apply it.
Mayor: Brown: I believe we should go on with this hearing, regarding this
C-R zoning, separately.
Mr. C.B. Mansur, Planning Consultant, stated, "I am representing the owners of the
thirty-one (31) acres that Mr. Roberts referred to and as he stated that if this
. hearing did not affect firm zoning of these particular properties possibly we might
not present any protest to the establishment of this particular zone. The resolu-
tion states that it refers to this thirty-one (31) acres and that this zone would
be used on that property.
Precise Plans No. 73,74 and 75 contain some fifteen (15) acres of property where
this proposed C-R zoning is proposed to be used. The objective of trying to
protect the Civic Center is good, but I do not think that uses allowed here are
quite broad enough. The bank.. -and financial institutions are good use around
Civic Center, or any commercial area., but I know that a number of banks and
commercial enterprises want and need foot traffic.
General business or professional offices, business college, educational insti-
tutions, etc. These thins are good in themselves but whether there is a demand
in this area to fill acres referred to is a question in point.
In regard to "other similar retail, wholesale, or service business when determined
in the manner set -forth in section 1403." in the resolution. I would like tocall
your attention to this Section 1403 which is "Clarification of Ambiguity or Ommission".
Mr. Mansur read Section 1403 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mansur continued,
"It would seem to me that this manner of wording in ordinance and clarify by
resolution. It would seem better if 'similar uses° were spelled out in the ordi-
nance.
• The next item in resolution is 'miscellaneous retail sales as allowed in Zone
C-1 (Art. 8) provided that such uses shall be accessory and subordinate to those
specified herein and shall be considered special uses to be allowed by Variance
only'.' Again what are accessory and subordinate uses? Is 10% of subordinate
area a proper division?Contains ab:gut 10% shops and stores and 90% offices.
Are those uses accessory and subordinate? 'These uses shall be considered special
uses by variance only. Does that mean you would have to qualify under variance
Article No. 1702., 'Required Showing of Variance'? Does that mean every time commer-
cial use is desired in this C-R you would have to apply for variance and show
conditions exist? When .you have to apply for variance for use of property it
makes it difficult to lease and sell property. You do not know what .you have.
The demand is for more commercial zoning in this city. The'city and the whole
area. has grown and is still growing. If C-R is put on this property it would
hold property back a number of ,years.
C.C. 5-14- 56
-4-
I am wondering whether twelve story building heig�it would be compatible to the
Civic Center.
This resolution refers only to this specific property. I believe in trying to
protect the Civic Center site ,you.should go all the way around the property
site to protect it.
I believe that architectural design overlay would better accomplish the purpose
across from civic center or any place you wanted it. That would control architec-
ture signs go that buildings are harmonious. It is better to.control design
of building rather than this so that if you want to put a drug store across from
• City Hall you would not have to get a variance.
I do not think Side Yards section is definite. CT,Tners of property would not
know whether they would have to provide side -yard or not until they applied for
conditional use of variance...
You can put this proposed ordinance in effect and it would prevent such type of
building like Bullock's from going in this zone, and I do not feel such types of
business would be detrimental to this.area.
Mr. Tolland of 1242 E. Workman stated, "I am an interested party in this property
and as far as banks or financial institutions coming into this area we have contacted
such institutions and they are not interested unless other business to go along
with the banks.
Mr. Shaw of 19058 Bonita Avenue Covina stated, "I am interested party in this property
and in tal.kin with credit and loan Association, more specifically Valley Savings
and Loan, they stated they would not be interested in coming into this area for
about ten ,years when homes would be paid off and people able to save their money.
Mr. A. Jett of 1432 Danes Drive wished to go on record as being 'in accord with views
already stated and opposed to this C-R zoning.
Mro A. Hathcock of 2612 Larkwood wished to go on record as opposing C-R zone
for reasons stated and that in way of uses by Planning Commission report it would
be many years before this property could be put to use.
Mr. C. Dellinger of 725 Carmencita Avenue stated that he was representing property
owners in neighborhood. "We feel that the Planning Commission has taken proper
action. There is a need for restrictive commercial building here. I would hate
to see another El Monte type Civic Center here with small commercial buildings
around it. I feel there is adequate property in the area already zoned C-1
and C-2., This land should be developed as good as possible and I can see no
reason why you cannot control this land by variances. The Planning Commission
resolution was to control the type of business going into this restricted area.
Such control could be done by such items as drug store or restaurant could
not be permitted in by variance. I think the Planning Commission has done a. good
job and we hope that the City Council will adopt resolution as it is set forth.
There was no further testimony on this matter, the hearing was declared closed.
C.C. 5-14-56 -5-
Councilman Mottinger: I have been listening to these arguments and it seems
there are a lot of openings left. It seemed evident
that both the opposition and proponents feel there is need for C-R zoning.
However, it is a question whether area so defined here as thirty-one acres can
be put to such use. I think the uses are not well defined and in sitting in with
the Planning Commission I gathered the impression they were not entirely satisfied
pith this resloution and that there could be some changes more desirable for pro-
perty owners themselves. I do not like to see a delay of these property owners,
but we have only one chance at making this zone correct and rom there in we are
left with it. I believe it might be in order to refer this back to the Planning
Commission and sugu_eat it be reread in co-operation with our Planning Consultant
• in regard to objections. At the same time we may be able to keep this zoning
and make it compatible to the property owners also.
Councilman Pittenger: I am in accord with C-R zoning for buffer around civic
center. The people are going to have a great deal of
money invested in this center and it should be kept nice. I do think that 31
acres is too much to ask for that kind of buffer. Perhaps a buffer might be
3002 depth all the way around the center site, and it would create buffer between
retail property and center site.
Councilman Crumley: I believe we are going to have to have further study
on this matter. The area of the ci�Tic center is going to need a fine development
around it anti perhaps we can grade down from there. I think it will have to be
referred back to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Kay: Those speaking in opposition mentioned architectural
control of adjoining buildings and areas which have
not been considered by Planning Commission. I believe these are matters which
should be investigated. This C-R zone, or what it represents, whould probably
be placed in certain areas surrounding the civic center but to try to cover 31
acres might be too stringent.
Mayor Brown: I go along with statements of the Council and in
addition I question the twelve story building height.
I believe such a height in buildings near the civic.,.center would be to put the
civic center in a hole. I believe this is a point that might be considered.
• Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that
Proposed Amendment of Zoning Ordinance (Ord No. 147 and 325) to Create Zone
Designation C-R (Commercial -Restricted) (City Initiated) be referred back to the
Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Brown stated that this is the time
PRECISE PLXIN AND RECLASSIFICATION and place for public hearing on Precise Plan
NO, 85 (1405) and Reclassification No..85 (14o5) Location:
Drendle and Keeling SW corner of Azusa and Puente Avenues.
APPROVED Request adoption of Official Precise Plan and
R-P uses. Existing Zone: R-A, Potential R-P.
Recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 18, 1956.
Maps were presented by the City Engineer. Recommendations of the City Engineer
were read as follows:
0
C. G 5.14-56
10
1) 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 s-.nitary sewers.
2) That all necessary street widening of Azusa and Puente Avenue and
other areas for streets and alleys shall be deeded to the City of
West Covina.
3) That all buildings and signs not exceed one story in height.
4) That all exterior lighting be installed and maintained in a manner
eliminating any nuisance to adjacent residential property.
5) That adequate water supply and fire protection be provided as required
by Ordinance No. 451.
6) That all excavating and grading work conform to provisions of Ordinance
No. 384.
7) That all bonds, fees and deposits for improvements be posted before
building permits are issued.
8) That a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed along the westerly property
line.
9) That development of the westerly 324 feet., except that portion
presently zoned R-P and C-1, be contingent upon approval of a sub-
division map in conformance with Ordinance No. 225.
10) That the portion shown as "Proposed Future Development" be excluded
from this Precise Plan and Reclassification.
11) That drainage ways be provided and improved in order to accommodate
surface drainage of the area collecting at the southwest corner of
the subject area and these improvements be satisfactory and meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
12) That all existing buildings be removed or demolished.
There was no testimony presented in this matter, the hearing was declared closed.
4
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Crumley and carried the Precise
Plan No. 85. (1405) be approved.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 59 Location: SW corner of Vincent Avenue and Workman Avenue.
and , Existing Zone: R-A., Requesting R-P. Decision held over from
PRECISE PLAN NO. 64 4-16-56.
Moser & Dale Maps were presented by the City Engineer. Mr. Gerschler
DENIED read resolutions of the Planning Commission recommending
denial. Report of Mr. Bennett, Planning Consultant, regarding
this matter., was read by Mr. Gerschler. This communication supplemented original
report of Mr. Bennett of April 9, 1956.
Left out of 5-14-56 minutes at conclusion of hearing on Precise Plan &
Reclassification No. 85 (1405) Drendle & Keeling.
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Crumley and carried
that Precise Plan No. 85 (1405) be approved subject to the recommenda-
tions of the City Engineer and development of the alley with access to
Azusa Ave. at the southerly end of the property.«
C.C. 5-14-56 -7-
Z.C. No. 59 and P.P. No. 64 Conttd
Mr. Gerschler stated that all pertinent information had been submitted to the Council
and that no further information would be giveia.
Mr. Gordon, Attorney for applicants, stated., "I would like to say that on the meeting
of April 16, 1956 we understood that this matter was being continued so that new
Council could become acquainted with this application and have opportunity to hear
arguments. I think it would be a .fair request that applicant, be heard as to merits.
I think we should have this opportunity as n3w members have not heard first hand
• in regard to this particular application., nor has the Mayor, and for this reason
think it should be heard.
City Attorney: Under the circumstances of change of make-up of Council I
think it would be reasonableto afford summarized facts of
this matter.
All those wishing to present testimony on this matter were sworn in by City Clerk.
Mr. Gordon, Attorney for applicants, stated, "I do want to make this comment in
that various proceedings have taken place at hearings of both the Council and Planning
Commission and to say just very little would raise the question as to whether this
was a summary. The agenda refers to the existing zone as R-1. This is in error
and should be R-A. I think it is important to refer to March 12 meeting of Council
and motion by Mr. Kay and Mr. Sperline at that time. The Council was interested
in th opinion of the Planning Consultant in regard to suitability of that particular
portion of property to R-P zoning. Engaged Mr. Bennett on April 2., and on April
9 received report. For purpose of studying this report this matter was continued
to April 16, 1956.
In order to appreciate what this application has gone through I wish to state some
remarks regarding Mr. Bennett's report. In his initial report he speaks of property
as R-A change from R-A to R-P which is this application. Refers to new zone of
R-P classification and suggests that medical clinics are also possible to be included
in such areas as C-15, C-2, C-3 or M-1. Goes on to say City provided for R-P
professional zones and refers to Azusa which he suggests is concentrated for R-P
. zoning. The inference here is that R-P zoning should be included in other parts
of the City. He comes to conclusion it would not be considered good zoning practice
to permit this area to establish single applicant. Actual request, if granted,
would be determined as spot zoning., since this stands alone. R-P, if actually
next to C-1 or M-1., would be in favor. It seems to me that 'spot zoning' is a
matter of opinion and circumstances.
Original and supplemental report states there.is not enough public necessity to
warrant this application. It is a matter of opinion as to adaptableness and
usefulness of this 1000t and I think such a conclusion suggests that he did not
do the particular work that was asked of him, that is to state whether this is*or
isngt a suitable piece of land for R-P purposes. I would argue against the report
of Mr. Bennett.
C.C. 5-14-56
ZC 59 & PP 64 Cont'd
0
This land is R-A improved with old building and barn. It is not a vacant lot or
R-1 proposed. It does not say R-1 is not logical., but it does not say that R-A
cannot be used on it. I do not think the nature of the residences in area would
like to have R-A. What would be the benefit to these R-1 residences in the area?
With R-P house and barn would be removed. The office building would be in keeping
with residential architectural plans as now exist and are in the interest of the
neighborhood and com.ilunity. Traffic conditions would be improved, as making use
of this corner would widen the street. R-A not in best use of neighborhood and
R-P would be.
Mr. Bennett seems to state that there are plenty of R-P in C-1 areas and city should
not make special consideration. That is like saying we have other places and we
do not like this particular one and you can go elsewhere.
I do not think this is the spirit on which application is considered. Application
rests on merits. Saying that we do have others and lots of them does not change
the fact that a particular one may have merit.
Mr. Bennett defeats own point when he says this is spot zoning. I think every-
thing is spot zoning. Consider how big a thing has to be to consider it spot
zoning.
One of the essential arguments is in opposition to Mr. Bennett's statement of
finding insufficient need to grant this. Persons in this area, familiar with this
area, know the need and it isn't that Mr. Bennett is the Planning Consultant and
can say his reasoning is final work. It isn't Mr. Bennett's word which is final
it is the opinion only of advisory, the final decision is with the Council.
Covin0 s population is around twelve to fifteen thousand persons and has forty-two
doctors. These figures are reported by AMA or other recognized organizations.
West -Covina with a population of 35,000 has 14 doctors. Proportion is three
to a,thousand-for Covina in doctors and one to three thousand for West Covina.
Mr. Bennett suggests there is over concentration of R-P on Azusa and we to call
attention that there is no medical office north of Garvey between Vincent and Azusa
and suggest that this distance is substantial to warrent need in that area.
On December 7., 1955 Mr. Robinson who was then Planning Consultant stated that this
matter had been studied and apparently was in favor of R-P along that land.
Mr. Towner of the Commission appeared to think this was logical location for R-P
zone and would not establish a precedent. Mr. Green of the Commission seemed
to think this Block Study would take care of objections and Mr. Morgan felt
the idea was good as a whole. Even though Mr. Gerschler has read the resolu.tion
denying this matter I do not think it conveys the whole story. There were three
motions made at that time. Precise .Plan area and considered spot zone, ,yet
there was another motion that Block Study should be presented to Council with
reasons and the third motion that -Block Study 37 be placed on agenda for next
meeting for consideration and report. Mr. Gerschler did make a report as to findings
and in essence he found property owners in favor. Objections from those outside
area. The matter came before the City 'Council and apparently the Council saw fit
C.C. 5-14-56
ZC 59 & PP 64 Cont°d
5Z
to return the application to the Planning Commission for consideration of Block
Study. For what ever reasons the Planning Commission saw fit not to reconsider
Block Study and stated in effect there was nothing before them because Council did
not take action or state thinking on subject. Came back to Council and matter,
which covered a substantial period of time, finally came up at meeting of April
16. We expected Council to act on application at that time but for reasons better
known to Council it was put over to this meeting.
The reasons given warranting the necessity and usefullness of such a project are
evident and would refer Council to the recommendations made by former Councilmen
• Hurst, Sperline and Van Horn stating the adapability of R-P zoning in this area.
I will assume you present have had occasion to read the minutes of meetings at
which various remarks took place. Dr. Moser has been in the community for five
years and would 'be a responsible person. If this; is adopted the Precise Plan will
be changed to proper indications and limits to two doctors a.ndt.-io dentists.
Mr. Maul, architect presented revised Precise Plan to Council.
Mayor Brown stated that this was a revision of the Precise Plan end could not be
considered under this particular matter before Council this evening.
Mr. Cox of 1020 Teresa Street spoke in opposition. "The Precise Plan in this matter
has two residential -professional buildings. Doctor Moser has never indicated
his willingness to change the Precise Plan. In regard tot he Planning Commission
not acting on Block Study 37. Block Study was not asked for by previous Council.
This Block Study was so that Planning Commission would have something before them
in case the previous City Council would change the recommendation of denial by
the Commission. Mr. Robinson, the former Planning Consultant, was instructed to
fit in this residential -professional in area so that if it would go that way
there would be knowledge of what city would have here. Property on corner is
not bad looking piece of property. Never objected to barn. Like to see it stay
that way. We want some residential zoning here and there is room. We were told
what R-A could be used for and that is why we are here tonight because one of the
property owners threatened us in regard to use of R-A if we didn't go along.
Petitions in opposition have been presented with 58 from nearby areas and 33
within 300' area. It was almost unanamous against this coming in. I believe that
the A14A figures stated are not very recent and I believe there are adequately
supported medically. In regard to various opinions of Commissioners as stated
by Mr. Gordon I do not believe the Commissioners were looking at this plan when
these statements were made but at the Block Study. I think it is time to stop this
spot zoning. We do not want this spot zone on corner and then used as a lever
against us at some later time.
Mr. J. Long of 11.23 E. Workman stated that the reason for this application was
purely economic on the part of the applicant.
Councilman Pittenger: I have seen the Block Study referred to and it is very
conceivable that the land south of this particular area
will be R-3 or something similar in time. However, at present it is not and while
I would say that perhaps at some othe2r time I might be in favor of this proposal
to put it to such use at this time I believe would constitute spot zoning and I am
not in favor.
C. C. 5-14-56
—lOm
Councilman Crumley: I believe that an application of such long standing as
this should be resolved. In.looking at Mr. Bennett's
report I realize it is in an advisory capacity and it does not involve my final
decision. We do not want to discourage doctors coming into West Covina. However,
I do feel that this proposal is spot zoning. I believe there is sufficient R-P
around, but possibly it would be well at a later time to re-examine the R-P
we have in the City and see if we do not want to do something about it. On that
basis I believe it would be in order to move this be denied.
Motion by Councilman Crumle„yr,
seconded
by Councilman Kay and carried that Zone
Change 59 and Precise Plan No.
64 be
denied.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Brown stated that this was the
ZONE CHANGE NO. 71
time and place for public hearing
PRECISE PLAN & RECLASSIFICATION NO.
73
(1405)
on the applications of several
ae as as as
NO.
74
(1405)
applicants as follows:
as as ar n
NO.
75
(1405)
HELD OVER
Zone Change No. 71 J.D. Roche, Tenmen Enterprise, Inc.., Location: E. side of Orange
Avenue, between proposed extension of Service and Cameron Avenue. Request C-2,
Existing Zone R-A Potential C-2. Disapproved by Planning Commission Resolution
No. 376 on 4-18-56.
Precise Plan and Reclassification No. 73 (1405) Chas. A. Ha.thcock, et al
Precise Plan and Re' classification No; 74 (1405) Artie R. Jett, et al.
Precise Plan and Reclassification No. 75 (1405) Darwin Shaw, et al.
Location: W side of Sunset Avenue between V-1nut 'Creek Wash and Service Avenue.
Request: C-2 Uses. Existing Zone R-A, Potential Cm2. Disapproved by Planning
Commission Resolutions on April 18, 1956.
Maps were presented by the City Engineer, with the exception of Zone Change No.
71 on which a plan, to date, has not been presented.
Mr. Gerschler read the recommendations of the City Engineer on Precise Plan and
Reclassification No. 74 (1405) as follows:
1) That all street improvements outlined in Section 49, Ordinance No. 2259
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 necessary street widening and area for street shall be deeded
to the City of Lest Covina.
3) That adequate water supply and fire protection be provided as required
by Ordinance No. 237 and Ordinance No. 315,
4) That all excavating and grading work conform to provisions of Ordinance
No. 384.
5) That all bonds, fees and deposits for improvements be posted before
building permits are issued.
C.C. 5-14-56 -11-
6) That the plan conform to adopted Block Study No. 38.
7) That drainage easements or drainage letters accepting storm water
drainage, be provided satisfactory to City Engineer,
Mr. Gerschler read the recommendations of the City Engineer on Precise Plan and
Reclassification No. 73 (1405) as follows:
1) 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 sani-
tary sewers.
2) That the Precise Plan conform to the proposed R.G.W. of the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District.
3) That all necessary street widening and area for streets shall be deeded
to the City of West Covina.
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 or Ordinance
No. 384.
6) That all bonds,, fees and deposits for improvements be posted before
building permits are issued.
7) That a chain'link fence or masonry wall be constructed around the service
station area.
8) That the Flan conform to Block Study No. 38.
9) That the layout of the service station site be subject to the approval
of the chief building inspector.
Mr. Gerschler read the recommendations of the City Engineer on Precise Plan and
Reclassification No. 75 (1,405) as follows:
1) 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 the precise plan conform to the proposed R.Q.W. of the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District.
3) That all necessary street widening and area for streets shall be deeded
to the City .of West Covina.
4.) That adequate water supply and fire protection be provided as required
by Ordinance No. 237 and Ordinance No. 315.
C.C. 5-14-56
-12-
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 the plan conform to adopted Block Study No. 38.
8) That drainage easments or drainage letters accepting storm water drainage,
be provided satisfactory to the City Engineer.
• As there had been no Precise Plan presented on Zone Change No. 71 there were no
recommendations of the City Engineer.
All those wishing to present testimony on this matter were sworn in by the City Clerk
Mr. H. Roberts, Attorney for applicants, stated, "There is before this body firming
up of applications involving some 37-1/4 acres of prime commercially potential,
desirable property in this city. These 37-1/4 acres are woned in a large part by
local businessmen and these local businessmen, without exception, as does Tenmen
Enterprise, own in fee simple without encumberance this land and I have been so
advised as their attorney. They are not speculators and have major interest in this
property. A substantial amount of money is represented by these acres. My clients
are not unmindful of the fact that the city has vital stake in this property. We
believe the city has a vital stake in this business property. We feel, however,
that the matters are to be presented to you that perhaps have not been referred to
and the Council may not know. Therefore I will expedite this hearing as much as
I can on these four application.
I will speak generally on these matters, followed x;y Mr. Mansur who will speak more
specifically and then by owners of this property.
I believe it is to be said that this matter originated in its inception in this zoning
of entire 37-1/4 gross acres by the adoption of a zoning map.placing this property in
C-2 potential zone on August 8, 1955. This, I belie�Te, was the first step taken.
Thereafter my clients busied themselves with taking appropriate action for development
• of this property. By November their plans and activities had progressed to a point
where they had contacted prospective leasees and leasors. Few people do have the money
to develop this, with improvements, and my clients do not have that kind of Money.
At that point they came to the city and advised its officers that everywhere they
were going bankers were saying 'you do not have commercial zoning and we cannot
give ,you.an appraisal for buildings'. 'There is nothing to appraise'. They realized
they needed something more tangible. They brought this to the attention of city
officials and advised that first step was a preparation of a block study. This
study was made on their own. A draft of this study was submitted and it became Block
Study no. 38. Block Study No. 38 was considered by the Planning Commission and offi-
cially a.dopt<d on December 21, 19.55. The Block Study was approved'by the City Council
on January 9, 1956. I have a certified copy of the Block Study and it is important
because it ties together each and everone of the Precise Plans. In reference to
the Block Study these plans were prepared end submitted." (Mr. Roberts presented to
Council certified copy of Block Study referred to). Mr. Roberts continued, "Immediately
upon approval of January 9, 1956 of this Block Study No. 38 my clients busied them-
selves to have presentation of Precise Plans, all except Zone Change No. 71 of Tenmen
Enterprise. They do not'have a Precise Plan as a building; site plan. They do,
C.C. 5-14-56 -13-
Mr. Roberts Cont1d:
however, have street layout of block study and shows all streets, which is one of the
important considerations and requirements -for a Precise Plan. They filed application
the first day of February for C-2 firm zoning so that they might proceed with financial
negotiations and construction of projects. My clients reached the stage where they
are ready, willing and able to go ahead with.these projects and await the pleasure
of the Council on these matters.
It is a matter of great urgency what you do here. The Planning Commission held public
hearing on March 7, 1956 and continued over until March 21, April 4 and April 18.
They adopted.a resolution to deny. Whether denied legally or not is question which
your City Attorney will advise you on and it is not my perogative to ad -rise you of
such. Whether they were approved by operation of law or not this body has the pero-
gative to pass on them and they are before you regardless of how they have come up
before you.
My clients are reasonable men. They realize your genuine interest in protecting
the civic center. We ask you to consider our interest as owners of the property and
not delay this unreasonably. I wish to point out that any reconsideration or reference
back in this matter requires it go back to the Planning Commission for public hearing
and then back before the Council again. All of this means time.
I wish to point
point out that 21 acres was sold by court sale. The price paid is of
public record for that 21 acres and may I sass
7 that I might form some calculations
to improtance of time to this. Twenty-one acres of one holding cost $200,000 cash
in open court. Roughly on the same basis entire 37 acres plus worth on that basis
is $400,000 give or take. Six per cent interest on investment of capital is not
considered unreasonable and six per cent interest for holding this property is costing
them in a year the amount of $24,000. In terms of a month six per cent of that invested
capital would be $2,000.00 a month and almost $70.00 a day. My clients hwe gone
back to considerable expense on the reliance of city's approval of block study for
commercial development.
My clients are agreeable to architect control on commercial property generally or
immediately contiguous to civic center, but if so placed ask that it be done that it
will apply to other property that adjoins civic center not only theirs. We urge you
to consider adoption of amendment -to your zoning ordinance to all C-2 property that
constitutes architectural overlay and signs.
Can only say that we seek for earliest action possible on these applications. We
do not believe Council may be willing to rule on this tonight but do urge you to take
action and consider arrangements we have made and preparations under Flock Study No. 38.,
the investment of capital and cost of carrying that.
Mr. Mansur,, Planning Consultant, speaking for applicants stated, "Mr. Roberts outlined
most everything I plan to say. Going back to zoning of present potential in 1955
when the Planning Commission and the City Council put in C-2 they recognized need
for more C-2 in the City. I do not have to go into the growth of this city you all
know how much growth has occurred. There is need -for more commercial zoning. The
owners of the property depended upon provisions of the zoning ordinance. Block
Study No. 38,was made and approved by Planning Commission and City Council and appai.-
cants Precise Plans were prepared. These three plans conform to the Block Study.
The uses indicated on those plans are compatible with civic center site.
C.C. 5-14-56
-14-
Precise Plan No. 74 consists of four-story office buildings with two small wings,
one on each side. The offices take about 50,000 square feet which is 91% of total
floor area and the shops about 8.8%. Almost all of that building conforms to proposed
C-R zoning referred to before.
The off-street parking complies with provisions of ordinance. It shows dedication
of Service Avenue on North, future street on West and entrances to the property
conform to the block study.
On Precise Plan No. 73, which is property to the east of Precise Plan No. 74, it
shows two story office building with wings on each end for shops. This consumes
89% floor area and shops 11%. There is a service station site at Service and Sunset
Avenues, Entrances are the same at the block study.
On Precise Plan No. 75, which is property�to the south, extending from the Wash
westerly to the future street and south to Cameron Avenue which is to to extended
by a brigde over the '41ash, and connected o Sunset Avenue. Buildings
are four buildings for retail stores, 11,100 square feet, with off-street parking
conforming to zoning ordinance. Exits an4 entrances conform with block study and
are on south and west side. This particular property is proposed for all retail
stores. However, this is the southerly most Portion of approximately fourteen or
fifteen acres and is the furthest away from the civic center and it is doubtful if
it could be seen from the center site.
These plans owned by three groups of persons would all be integrated and developed
as one unit. This.request is to firm up to C-2 potential zone. Many of these uses
are necessary and desirable near a civic center. Present C-2 zone could have
barber shop, beauty shop, book store, real estate, restaurants, etc. and they are uses
normally desirable and necessary in the vicinity of a civic center.
I mentioned in the discussion of C-R zone that I believed civic center would be better
protected by architectural design and signs that such zoning as proposed in the C-R.
State Conservation Plarining and my Act Article 65800., has a provision that makes it
possible to put architectural design zoning in zoning ordinance. Many cities are
taking ad -vantage of this and has been used in Santa Barabara, El Monte,, La Habra.
Arcadia is attempting to include this in their zoning.ordinance. It would be my
suggestion and r,.,quest that these Precise Plans be approved as they do conform to
block study and that you approve C-2 firm zone. Then you could immediately take
action to proceed with architectural design overlay. I also think that other property
around civic center should be treated in the same manner. For the benefit of the
owners of this Property who have gone ahead and presented precise plans in accordance
with zoning ordinance there should be no delay.
Mr. A. Jett, applicants, stated that he did not think there was much that he could
add to what has been said. Hoi,,eVer, he stated thet he believed Council was aware of
the fac# that applicants had been under the impression that C-? had been put on this
property for quite some time, and therefore had gone ahead with plans on that assump-
tion. Mr. Jett stated that he believed that Council was acquainted with the record
and that he spoke in favor of C-2 firm zoning in these matt,'ors.
C.C. 5--14-56
-15-
Mr, Shak, applicant, stated, "We made arrangements to pay off Trustee and now we
hold title. We are willing and ready, and have the money, to put in streets. Under-
stand that the street to the South does not border on our property and we are ready
to put up bond to pay for share of street work. I came here in 1949 and started
building in West Covina so you know I am not a 'fly-by-night' operator. We are going
to be the architectural committee on our own property so that we can be sure that
any building constructed will be.a nice building and be coripatable to civic center
and City Hall,
Mr. A. Hathcock, applicant, Stated, "I know by your action here tonight that you must
• be very interested in the City of West Covina. Myself and my brother are interested
in West Covina as much as anyone else. Four years ago we opened the Center Market
here and were given six months and that was it. Argued with landlord to double size
of,buildin-,s and they would not as they did not believe in the future of West Covina,
nor did many others. I bring this out to show that we are not just promoters. Believe
our plans conform with City requirements and patterns for C-2 zoning,, and am willing
to abide by any architectural'design deemed necessary.. We do not want to do anything
to conflict with the civic center. I ask that this be approved for firm C-2 zoning.
Mr. C.C. Tolland stated... "I think I have the interest of West Covina at heart. Want
to stay Inre"and invested in 'Jest Covina and should like to utilize the land here to
best advantage for the city. We would be willinF, and even feel that you should,
regulate the architectural design and will go along with any program you might present.
I ask you allow firm C-2 zone here.
Mr. C. Dellinger of 725 Carmencita stated,, "I represent neighbors in this vicinity.
I believe that there is a filling station proposed at Sunset. I feel that there
are adequate filling stations in West Covina. I believe this matter should be taken
into consideration and if possible station proposal be rejected."
There was no further testimony presented., the hearings were declared closed.
Council man ,Crumley- I wonder that in order to study some of the pros and cons
. an this matter if a committee of Council, Planning Commission,
could be formed? Perhapp.this would facilitate things more quickly. It is just a
suggestion.
•
Councilman Kay: T think it is a good idea. The plans submitted here and
overall proposal is good. What requirements we could place
on area immediately adjacent to civic center site I think we can do it at Council
level.
Councilman Pittengerr. Perhaps we can do it with architectural overlay on property
adjacent to civic center area. How deep it should be I
do not know. I believe we should do it at Council level if we could.
Councilman Mottincrer: How would we propose to hand architectural overlay as it
is not in C-2 zoning ordinance?
C.C. 5-L4-56 -16-
Mr. Mansur., You. could approve Precise Plans and firm zoning and hold
final reading and adoption of an ordinance. In meantime
introduce proceedings by putting in architectural overlay design. Hold public hearings
on that and then apply it to possibly 100 or 200 foot depth all around the civic
center. I think this type of zoning would work and you could hold up actual adoption
of ordinance until you get this other under way so that it would be impossible to put
up anything in architecture. Approve Precise Plan and firm zone and have architec-
tural zone before come up with any building plans before building department.
Councilman Mottinger: Has Planning Commission seen these plans? What if any
is criticism in regard to service station?
Mr. Gerschler: I believe Planning Commission has indicated they are not
in favor of a service station site.
Councilman Mottingero. I believe we should do all possible to expedite these plans
but at the same token there are one or two things we criti-
cized and think Planning Commission should be advised of our plans. I think Councilman
Crumley's idea of committee was good.
Councilman Kay: Perhaps by committee action we could develop firm recommenda-
tions on these plans and present to Council. We would
be in position to recommend firm action.
Motion by Councilman Crumley, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that a committee
of two members of Council., and two members of Planning Commission be formed, with
Mr. Gerschler of Planning Department, to give report on this matter.
Mayor Brown appointed Councilmen Crumley and Pittenger to serve on,this committee.
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried that Zone
Change No. 71 and Precise Plans and Reclassifications 73, 74 and 75 be taken under
further advisement.
PRECISE PLAN 1,10. 80 Location: West side of Barranca Street between Walnut
and Creek Wash and Virginia Avenue. Request: R-3 and adoption
ZONE CHANGE No. 62 of Official Precise Plan. Existing tone- R-A, Potential
R-3. Decision held o-,,rer from 4-16-56.
Mrs. Samuels, representing applicant, requested that this matter be held over for
for further consideration and study of the proposal.
City Clerk presented and read communication from Mr. M. L. Abrams of 2907 E. Mesa
Drive, Mr. D. N. Cullen of 3150 Virginia Avenue and Mr. L. M. Heredia of 138 So..
Barranca requesting that potential R-3 classification now carried by this property
be eliminated and that the property be returned to the classification of R*l, Area
District III.
. C.C. 5-14-56 -17-
Councilman Kay: We have two requests for action here. One to continue and
I the other to deny and return to classification R-1. It was
feeling of many members of the Council after applicant had started to follow through
on the potential zoning that unrestricted uses in that area could affect greatly
the homes in the area. Question in minds of previous Council was to what restrictions,
what type of Precise Plan should be made and was it correct zoning after surveying
all the facts-. Confronted with subdivision map not Precise Plan, then Precise Plan,
and then revised Precise Plan. I think that the owner or applicant has established
a certain right or reason for making request here 1;:ased upon previous, !action of Council
in amending zoning map, but I feel home owners have strong case in regard to use that..
was set up. Feel we should make sure -exactly of conditions placed upon property if
developed as R-39 or if not agreed on R-3 or restrictions then we should initiate
rodeedings to revert this back to R-1 zoning. To resolve this problem we have to
reach some agreement as to what we want to do. Perhaps we could appoint a committee
to ge our thinking together.
Councilman Cruml-ey- I believe this is the proper stand to take.
Councilman Kay: 1think we should resolve our thoughts among us.
Councilman Mottinger.- There are several things that need more clarifying here.
Applicant evidently has something else in mind to request
delay. coning ordinance is not too specific. I would go along with committee idea
on this.
Councilman Pittenger.- I think one bi[>� problem here is that more persons per land
area than should be allowed. I would be in favor of committee
to study this matter.
Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried that a
committee of Councilman Kay and Councilman Pittenger be appointed to study this matter,
�and hold this matter over for further consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Brown stated that this is the time and place
PRECISE PLAN AND for public hearing on Precise Plan and Reclassifi-
RECLASSIFICATION NO.. 83 (1405) cation No. 83 (1405). Location: North side of
10 Mrs. Trieve A. Tanner Garvey between Toland Avenue and Lark Ellen Avenue.
APPROVEIX Request: Adoption of Official Precise Plan and
R-j uses. Existing Zone: R-A, Potential, R"3-
Recommended for approval by Planning Commission Resolution No. 363 on April 4, 1956.
Maps were presented,by the City Engineer. Recommendations of the'City Engineer
were read as follows:
1) That the Precise Plan conform to the proposed R.O.W. of the State Division
of Highway.
2) That all buildings not exceed one story in height.
3) That 5' wide concrete sidewalks be installed along street frontages.
4) That street lights- be provided as required.
C.C. 5-14-56 -18-
All those wishing to present testimony were sworn in by City Clerk. Mrs. Overall of
879 North Grandview Covina, speaking for applicant stated, "This property was purchased
a number of years ago as potential R-3 and applicant now requests firm zoning on it.
Have submitted plans which -conform to neighborhood. Applicant feels that this zoning
would be a buffer against possible motel on adjoining lots to this property."
Mr. Barbone of 1251 E. Mardina Street spoke in opposition. "Property in question is
adjacent to presently zoned R-1 property which is developed as such and has been for
several ,years. Property eastward and adjacent to property in question is presently
R-A potential R-3. This property and adjacent vacant property was piece of property
• partially acquired by State for service road. At that time it was considered potential
R-3 and used as such, Ivy Motel.. Since motel gone and service road taking 759 of
southerly portion of property it is r.o longer advisable as motel site only as R-l.
Adjacent property to north developed R-l. Only about six lots immediately east of
that property that is vacant and can reasonably be used as R-1. Property owners
signed petition that this be placed as R-1. Feel this is fair to community and
owners as there is no property loss due to payment for use of part of property by the
State.
Do not believe this would be buffer. There is a. street that is a buffer9 service
road is highway buffer and we do not need commercial type boning within planned
community. It is all R-1 here and think it is a reasonable plan to suggest it should
be R-1. Northerlv portion never been zoned other than R-1. Record will show zone
chance 29 on August 26, 1954 that portion of property was zoned R-1. During the time
Ivy Motel on property rear portion was never used as R-3. That was�left vacant because
zoned as R-1. No reason to zone it R-3 now. Forty-three property owners north, east
and west have sinned petition this zone request be denied.
Mr. Gerschler presented and read a communciation dated May 11, 1956 from E. Imperio of
1243 Mardina Street stating opposition.
There was no further testimony presented the hearing was declared closed.
Motion by Councilman Crumley, seconded by Councilman Kay and carried that Precise
Plan and Reclassification No. 83. (1405) be approved subject to the recommendations
of the City Engineer.
CONTINUATION OF JOINT Mr. M. Haller presented report in regard to request
RECREATION SYSTEM for continuation of joint recreation system in the
Referred to City Manager City of West Covina as it now exists.
City Manager stated that he was familiar with this matter but could not advise
at present time in regard to finance. West Covina contributes two cents on assessed
tax revaluation and believe that it what you are requested to continue at this time.
It was consensus that this matter be checked into by the City Manager and report
made in regard to what should be done in this matter at next meeting of May 21.
C.C. 5-14-56
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 15
Tract No. 22004
APPROVED.
No. 15 be approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 940
ABANDON EASEMENTS
Tract No. 22768
• (Adsit)
ADOPTED
that Resolution No. 940 be
.-19-
Location: NE corner of Vine Avenue and Azusa Avenue.
Upon recomendation of Sanitation Engineer, motion by
Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and
carried that on basis of facts received from Sanitation
Engineer and his recommendation Reimbursement Agreement
City Attorney presented andread Resolution No. 940
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, VACATING CERTAIN EASEMENTS HERETOFORE
GRANTED TO SAID CITY."
Location: North of Puente Avenue, west of AZUSa Avenue.
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Pittenger
adopted. motion passes on roll call as follows:
Ayes.- Councilmen Mottinger, Crumley, Pittenger, Kay, Brown
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION NO. 941 City Attorney presented and read Resolution
APPROVING PRIORITY LIST CF-HIGhWAY No. 941 " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
AND THOROUGHFARE PROJECTS CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
ADOPTED. PRIORITY LIST OF HIGHWAY AND THOROUGHFARE
PROJECTS IMPROTANT TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR WHICH SPtCIAL LOS ANGELES
COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT FUNDS ARE REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT IA2 AND EXHIBIT
IB° ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF." Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded
by Councilman Kay that Resolution No. 941 be adopted.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Mottinger, Crumley, Pittenger, Kay, Brown
Noes: None
Absent-. None
RESOLUTION NO. 943 City Attorney presented and read Resolution No.
APPLICATION FOR ADVANCE TO PROVIDE 943 "A RESOLUTION OFF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
FOR PLANNING OF PUBLIC WORKS OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING FILING
ADOPTED OF APPLICATION WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR AN ADVANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLANNING OF
PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE TERMS OF PUBLIC LAW 560, 83RD CONGRESS OF M- UNITED STATES,
AS AMENDED." Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Crumley th,t
Resolution No. 943 be adopted. Motion passes on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Mottinger, Crumley, Pittenger, Kay, Brown
Noes: None
Absent: None
EMERGENCY City Attorney presented and read Ordinance No. 473
ORDINANCE NO. 473 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
Amending Section 1411 of Ordinance WEST COVINA, CrZIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1411 OF
No. 325 ORDINANCE NO. 325 OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
ADOPTED KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSI''IE ZONING ORDINANCE."
Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman
Pittenger that emergency Ordi.nance,Noe 473 be adopted.
0
C.C. 5-14-56 -20®
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Mottinger, Crumley, Pittenger, Kay, Brown
Noes: None
Absent: None
ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS Upon recommendation of the City Engineer motion by
CITY PROJECT NO. C-29 Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Pittenger that
Azusa and Vine Avenues street improvements at Azusa and Vine Avenues, City
APPROVED Project No. C®29, be accepted and authorizations
be given for payment of $19,483.60 on completed
contract and release of General. Casualty Company performance Bond No. 336482 in the
amount of $9,983043 and Labor and Materials Bond No. 986482 in the amount of $9,968.43e
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Mottinger, Curmley, Pittenger, Kay, Brown
Noes.- None
Absent: None
REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER Report in regard to resignation of Chairman
RECREATION COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Peg Riegel held over until meeting of May 21.
ATTENDANCE AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE
CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
by Chief Stanford
May 21-22-23
APPROVED
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Motion by Counciman Curmley, seconded by
Councilman Pittenger that authorization
be given to Police Chief R.J. Stanford to
attend annual conference of California
Peace Officer Association at San Diego
including estimate expenses of $95o00e
Ayes: Councilmen. Mottinger, Crumley, Pittenger, Kay, Brown
Noes: None
Absent: None
OFFICIAL POPPY DAYS Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Pittenger
May 25-26 and carried that authorization be given to American Legion
APPROVED request designating May 25th and 26th as TOfficial Poppy
Days.'
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Kay, seconded by Councilman Crumley
that Claims and Demands be paid subject to audit of the Auditing
Committee.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilman Mottinger, Crumley, Pittenger, Kay, Brown
Noes: None
Absent- None
0
C.C. .5-14-56
-21-
There was no further business,:meeting was adjourned at 12:10 P.M. until May 21, 1956
at 8:00 P.M.
Attest:
Robert Flotten
City Clerk
Jay D. Brown
Ma.yor, City of West Covina