04-14-1958 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING.OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY.OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
April 14, 1958
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kay at 7:30 P.M.'in the
West Covina City Hall. The invocation was given by Councilman
Pittenger.
ROLL' 'CALL
Present: Mayor Kay, Councilmen Barnes, Bkown,-Pittenger
Others.Present: Director.of Public Works and Acting City Manager,
City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Attorney, City
Engineer, Planning Commission Secretary, Park
and Recreation Director,
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that Councilman Mottinger be excused from this meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 24, 1958 The Minutes were approved as corrected as in-
dicated on the Agenda in that Pbge 22 should be
corrected to read.'April 14, 1958.1
March 31, 1958 The Minutes were approved as submitted.
SPECIAL
AWARD OF EMPLOYEE Mayor Kay. It was the feeling of our
SERVICE CERTIFICATES Council and the Acting City Manager that
recognition should be given to those
,employees who have served the City for
five (5) years or longer. Certificates
are to be presented at this time, and pins
will be presented at a later date.
Certificates for meritorius service were presented to the following:
NAME DEPARTMENT NO, OF YEARS
OF ACTUAL WORK
Fern Sayers Merry Treasurer 18
Ben A. Ruegge Street 17
Percy R. Jackson-- Building 15
Thelborn J. Stanford Special Services Officer 14
-1-
C.C. 4-14-58
Page two
AWARDS - continued
NO. OF YEARS
NAME
DEPARTMENT
OF ACTUAL WORK
Capt. Marshall Fa Henson
Police
11
Sgt. Keith Martin
Police
1.2
Capt. William M. Ryan
Police
12
Adeline Auer
Maintenance
8
Lela W. Preston
Deputy City Clerk
8
Roy Co Craig
Street
8
•
Capt. Jo C. Gaines
Fire
6
Capt. W. Guerin
Fire
6
Ralph E. Hardin
Fire Dep t. Consultant
6
Capt. Joseph Sein
Fire
6
Capt. Ora M. Short
Fire
6
Mabel I. Hoffland
City Clerk's Office
6
Robert Flotten
City Clerk
5
Laurence C. McMillan
Engineering
5
Rawlston E..Pontow
City Engineer
5
Sgt. Rudolph S. Phillips
Police
5
Officer Donald 0. Rund
Police
5
Fern Eileen Cronogue
Police
5
Sgt. Ralph W. Laughlin
Police
5
Ira J. Sha.fer
Parks and Recreation
5
FINAL REPORT OF WAYS AND
MEANS SUB -COMMITTEE OF CIVIC
IMPROVEMENT
COMMITTEE."
Mr. Henry Hughes: On
behalf of the Ways and Means
Sub -committee
of
the Citizens Civic Improvement
Committee
•
I
present the final report of
our committee.
The report has been reviewed by our committee, and by
the general
Civic Improvement Committee and been approved by them.
-2-
C.C. 4-14-58
WAYS & MEANS - continued
Page three
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and
carried that the Final Report of the Ways and Means Sub -committee
of Civic Improvement Committee be accepted.
Mayor Kay extended the appreciation of the City Council for the
work done on this matter..
PUBLIC WORKS LOCATION: Montezuma Way from Cameron Avenue
to 555' + Southerly.
TRACT NO. 19192
Petition requesting City participation in the
installation of sanitary sewers in subject
Tract. Referred to the Director of Public Works for further report
by City Council at their adjourned regular meeting of April 7, 1958.
The Public Works Director stated that the. City Engineer would
present.the report on this matter,
"Property owners of lots 3-10, Tract No. 19192 on Montezuma Way
south of Cameron Avenue have by a letter and petition to your
honorable body, dated April 1, 1958, requested City aid in the
installation of sanitary sewers. As indicated in said letter the
petitioning property owners are willing to pay for two of the four
,non -participating lots on a reimbursement basis and request the
City to participate in the mainline construction for the remaining
two lots. In addition they request that the construction inspection
fees be waived.
Based on preliminary estimates, the mainline sewer costs will be
$269.00 per lot. House connection costs will be an additional
$96.06, totaling'$365.00. If the City participates as requested
in the amount of approximately $538.00, then each of the eight
petitioning property owners must pay an additional $67.00 or a
total of $432.00. The City would repay the petitioning property
owners when the non -participating lots connected and paid their
charges. The City funds invested would be returned in the same
manner.
Sometime ago your honorable body indicated your intention not to
participate in these type of projects and on that basis the follow-
ing recommendations are made:
I. The.petitioning property owners finanibe the entire in-
stallation.
2,, The City would enter into a reimbutsement agreement with
.those owners to repay them for lots 1, 2, 11 and 12 as
those lots connected to the sewer and paid their charges.
3.,The City could waive the construction inspection fees as
has been done on similar projects in the past.
-3-
• C.C� 4-14-58 Page four
0
TRACT NO, 19192 - continued
Motion by Councilman Pittenger to accept the recommendations of
the City Engineer failed for lack of a second.
Mr. R. Klema of 843 Montezuma Way stated as follows°
I am the owner of Lot 6. I am a. Civil Engineer and I came to the
City to request advice as to how to handle this problem and was
informed the City would participate to some extent. I have prepared
a complete set of engineering plans to have this done and have
made a proposal on,the basis of this. We know that some City par-
ticipation has been carried on in the past and we are just asking
for some help, Those who are not interested in this are either
selling their homes or say that they can hook into Cameron Avenue
(sewer). We are not asking for money but some of the surplus that
is available for such use.
We are doing more than our share to help out with more than half
of these people that do not want these sewers. There isn't a. home
there that pays less than $650.00 in taxes a year and some are up
to a $1000.00 and we feel we certa.in.l.y should have some help. We
have facilities we cannot even use, such as Dishwashers and Washing
Machines.
I also talked to the City Engineer in regard to the possibility of
a 1911. Act.
Mayor Kay° I believe our City Attorney has previously ruled it
is .illegal to use funds in this method,
City Attorney: The thing I think you cannot do is to allocate
the cost of an improvement over a certain
number of lots and have the City back up the
bill for certain of the lots that do not want to participate or are
unable to participate and to work out some arrangement for the
City to'be paid later.
For the City to contribute a lump sum to aid the project is legal
but the lump sum must go to the project as a whole and not be
'earmarked' for certain lots not entering into participation.
Councilman Pittenger: If we make a contribution we would be
putting ourselves in_a. position of
having to do that in other cases and
I do notthink we could go along with that. We may have a lot of
people who have 85% signed for participation and then say, you dial
it for one group why not do it for use I think we should do every-
thing we can to help but not to start something we may not be able
• to.stopa
City Engineer: There is money available in the Sewer
Construction Fund.
-4-
• C,C. 4-14-58- Page five
TRACT NO. 19192 - continued
Mayor Kay:
City Engineer,:
Mayor Kay:
Councilman Brown:
How much?
About $10,000.00. '
Is that unencumbered money?
Wasn't that money to relieve in certain
instances such as this?
Acting City Mgr.: The purpose of that money was for ex-
tending sewer trunks or taking care
of matters in the public interest of
more than just local scope. We have used some of this money for
such installations under the San Bernardino Freeway which would
have cost the property owners much more if it was put in after
construction of the Freeway. We have used it for similar requests
when there has been a, large area. involved and it involved a trunk
sewer.
In this case you have a -few lots and the proportion of the lots not
contributing upsets the program and puts this out of balance. We
had our sewer ordinance revised so that in the case of a cash
deal it could be carried on if somebody else would pick up the check.
Here we have a local sewer problem and sewers are for the benefit
of private property and tha:t is the problem.
Councilman Pittenger: How'many lots won't hook up?
City Engineer: There are four lots, but we would
recover, actual charges.
Councilman Pittenger: What if two lots go to the other sewer
line?
City Engineer- That would be their privilege but it
would cost them more for their con-
nection as the lateral is much longer
and much deeper,
Councilman Brown: Is this inspection for sewer or filling
of Septic Tanks and are we talking
about $5.00 or $20.00 a house in waiving
of fees?
City Engineer: I believe this only goes to the property
line.
• Mayor.Kay: How do we, stand on waiving those fees?
City Attorney: If Ordinance permits waiver you can,
but if not, you cannot,
-5-
4-14-58
Page six
TRACT WO.''19192 '--'cOntinUe'd'
City Engineer.
These fees
have been waived in three other
instances.
Councilman Pittenger: If we
could find out some way to do
this
without getting too involved I
would
like to see money advanced to
take
care of this proposition and
also
waive fees.
City Attorney:
Advancing money you cannot do. You can
contribute
to the project but when it comes
to paying
shares of four lots tha.t is what
you cannot
do,
Mayor Kay:
Wha.t about
a $500.00 contribution from the
City?
City Attorney: You cannot advance credit of the City to
get something done and then get it back when
they hook up,
Councilman Brown: When was this submitted to the.Ci ty?
City Engineer: Petition was dated March 31, 1958.
Mayor Kay, I think Mr. Klema, that you can understand
what the ruling of the City Attorney is, and
we can't go against that.
Mr. Klemm: It was indicated that we couldn't use the
1911 Act because of the size of this so
where do we stand? We want help and we
must ask you for it and we do not want to carry it all by our-
selves, so where do we go?
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown and
carried that this matter be referred back to the City Attorney
and the Acting City Manager to see if we can't get this thing
worked out (to give some aid in this matter) and report to be
presented at next Council meeting.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
BIDS - 8:00 P.M.
1911 ACT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
• A'11"56-4
BID AWARDED
T-H Construction Co.
Workman Avenue and Irwindale Avenue
Sewer, District Et al.
Bids were received as advertised at 10.00 A.M., April. 11,- 1958
-6-
• C.C. 4-14-58 Page seven
11
•
C1
BID 'AWARDED - continued
in the office of the City Clerk and referred to the Sanitation
Engineer for recommendation to the City Council at this meeting.
Bids were received from the following:
T-H Construction Company $52,993.68,
Martin Kordick 54,023.10
O'Sha.ughnessy Construction Co. 54,068.06
Mike Ra.mljak Company 55,203.04
A.H. Famularo 56,445.19
Frank Chutuk Construction 56,8.10,70
Jerry Artukovich 57,343.46
Charles J.-.Dorfman 58,426.16
A. R. Milosevich & Son 59,560.21
L. D. & M. Construction Co. 60,286.71
L.L. Craig 61,879.93
George Dakovich .61,951�09
Izzi Construction & Quinones 64,226.18
J. & M. Grizel 67,629.23
The City Engineer recommended that the award of contract be made
to the T-H Construction Company as the lowest responsible bidder
in the amount of $52,993.68 and that a. Resolution be adopted
awarding said contract.
RESOLUTION NO. 1320 "A RESOLUTION OF -THE CITY COUNCIL OF
Awarding contract to THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
Improve Workman Avenue AWARDING CONTRACT TO IMPROVE WORKMAN
and Irwindale Avenue AVENUE AND IRWINDALE AVENUE AND OTHER
and other streets STREETS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY WITHIN THE
(A111-56-4) CITY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION OF
ADOPTED INTENTION NO. 1286."
(T-H Construction Company)
Mayor Kayo Hearing no objections, we will waive further
reading of the body of the Resolution.
-7-
• C.C. 4-14-58
BIDS continued
Page eight
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes
that Resolution.No. 1320 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call
as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
COMIDA PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM Furnish Labor and/or materials
necessary to complete an irrigation
BID AWARDED system in a public park area.
Jackson Supply Company (Comida. Park)
. Bids were received as advertised at 10:00 A.M. on April 14, 1958 in
the office of the City Clerk and referred to the Engineering Depart-
ment for recommendation to the City Council at this meeting.
•
•
•
The following bids were received:
Edwards Supply Company
Allied Sprinkler Company
Jackson Supply Company
Valley -Cities Supply Co.
Cert. Chk. $714.40
Exclude items 2 to
8 and 49
Bid Bond $1,400.00
10% Bid Bond
Cash. Chk. $866.00
Item #1-$5,797.23
Item #2- 7,144.07
Item #1-$8,400.00
" #2- 9,500.00
#3-10,490.00
" #4-11,800.00
#5- 1,890.00
" #6- 2,220.00
Item #1-$7,172.34
it #2- 8,511.97•
Item #1-$7,429.07
" #2-. 8, 656.65
Paul Argersinger Bid Bond $1,200.00 Item ##3-10,475.77
#4-11,301.86
#5- 2,000.00
#6- 2,150.00
*Item #4 - with the exception of 425 ft. of 4"
galvanized pipe.
J. C. Nees -Turf Supply Co. This bid, in the amount of $4,109,93,
i•s.only on a portion of the material
required and there was no bond
attached and the envelope was not
marked "Bid".
City Engineer: We checked these bids with the Park and
Recreation Department and reviewed various
-8-
• C.C. 4-14-58
BIDS continued
Page nine
alternates and providing that money is available we would recom-
mend as follows:
A) That the award be made to Jackson Supply Company on the basis
of their low bid on Item No. 2 (galvanized pipe) in the amount
of $8 , 51.1.97 .
B) That all other bids be rejected with their bid bonds returned
to the respective bidders.
C) That the Park Department be a.uth6rized to proceed with the
installation of the sprinkler system using Park Department
labor.
• D) That the Park Department be authorized to take advantage of
offer to provide 5120 tin, ft. of trenching at $0.07 per foot.
Acting City Manager: If Council. desires to do this we can,
by administrative order, take from
another project which will not be
construed this year.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that
bird award be made to Jackson Supply Company on the basis of their
low bid on Item No. 2 (galvanized pipe) in the amount of $8,511.97
plus tax, for pipe for Comida Park and that all other bid bonds
be returned to the unsuccessful bidders.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
• Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that
the Park Department be instructed to proceed with the installa-
tion of the sprinkler system, using Park Department labor and
that the Park Department be authorized to take advantage of
offer to provide 5120 lin. ft. of trenching at $0.07 per foot.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
HEARINGS
• PROTEST HEARING LOCATION: South side.of Francisquito
ON ANNEXATION NO. 154 Avenue, between Azusa and Lark Ellen
HEARING CONTINUED Avenues.
-9-
• CX. 4-1.4-58 Page ten
City Clerk: Resolution No, 1306 of the City Council set
hearing for this date and this was advertised
in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on April
2, 1958 and April 9, 1958. On April, 3, 1958 we sent copies of
this resolution to the owners in the area.- The land value in the
area. is $84,800.00 and has 78 registered voters.
We have just received requests from Clyde ID Batchelder and
Marjorie M. Batchelder to exclude Lots 302 and 318 from this Annex-
ation and from Emanual He Burke to exclude property at 1811 No.
Azusa. Avenue from this annexation.
MAYOR KAY OPENED THE PROTEST HEARING,
Mayor Kay: Are there any other persons in the audience
• who desire to protest annexation to the
City -under Annexation No. 154?
There were no protests forthcoming.
Mayor Kay: Under inhabited annexation proceedings I
believe we have to give additional time
for protests. Were those requests for
exclusion sufficient to kill this annexation?
City Clerk: No, they were not.
City Attorney: There is a 10 day extension in which supple-
mental. protests may be filed so you should
continue this hearing for two weeks and
authorize the City Clerk to bring in a complete summary of these
and any additional protests at that time.
• Mayor Kay stated there was a 10 day time limit to submit protests
making a deadline of April 24, 1958.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and
carried that the Protest Hearing on Annexation No, 154 be con-
tinued -until the meeting of April 28, 1958 and the City Clerk be
authorized to bring in a complete summary of protests received,
and any additional protests, at that time,
ZONE VARIANCE NO. 224 LOCATION: Southeast corner of
The Cl.assis of California Cameron and Valinda. Avenues.
(Reformed Church of America)
HELD OVER UNTIL APRIL 28, 1958
Mayor Kay: I believe there is quite a. group here this
evening who would like to know something
about the committee meeting in relation to
the request for a church at Valinda. and
Cameron.
-10-
• C.C. 4-14-58
Z.V.'NO'.'224 - continued
Page eleven
Councilman Barnes: I think I may have misled these people who
are here tonight in one respect because I
may have indicated this meeting was to be
two weeks from the night they were here and.they would be notified
again. However, this matter does not appear on tonight's Agenda..
There was a meeting on April 5th attended by Reverend Koosman,
Reverend Locher and Reverend Gunn, two members of the Planning
Commission, two members of Council and the Planning Commission
Secretary, In the discussion that took place at that meeting we
came up with the following summary:
1) Wewouldstrive for the idea of locating churches at least one-
third of a mile apart.
• 2) When churches wish to come into the community they should demon-
strate a community need for that church. (One way would be by
survey of the neighborhood and asking questions in that area
they have in mind.)
3) A committee should be selected to which new church organizations
could be referred for guidance in the selection of sites. This
committee should be selected by the Ministerial Association.
4) There will, be another meeting on Thursday, April. 24th, to dis-
cuss this matter further because the Planning Commission
Secretary was requested to present City maps and show available
property for this use, so we could help the churches and keep
them at the one-third mile distance.
• Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and
carried that Zone Variance No. 224 beheld over until, the meeting
of April 28, 1958.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 113
PRECISE PLAN NO, 121:
Ferraro, Hill and Hoke
DENIED
LOCATION: Northeast and Northwest
corners of Lark Ellen and Francis-
quito Avenues,
Denied R-3, R-P and C-1 Uses and
Adoption of Precise Plan under Plan-
ning Commission Resolutions No. 571 and 573. Decision of the
Planning Commission appea"l.ed by letter from T. Kirk Hill dated
February 24, 1958.
Hearing held on March 24, 1958 by:the City Council with Hearing
continued to this date to allow'..-idl evidence to be presented.
Maps were presented by the City Engineer and the Planning Commission
Secretary reviewed the pertinent part of the Planning Commission
Resolutions denying this request. The Recommendations of the
Planning Commission and City Engineer are written into the Minutes
of the Council meeting of March 24, 1.958.
_11-
• ti
• C.C. 4-14-58 Page twelve
Z.'C'.' .'NO.' 113 - oghtinued
Mayor.Kay; At this time we shall continue the hearing
from the meeting of March 24, 1,888 and
.allow the proponents to make their presents,-.
tion. Can the proponents estimate the time
for their presentation?
Mr. Francis J. Garvey of 700 Orangewood Drive, Covina, and the
Attorney representing the applicants stated that if Council would
grant 30 minutes he believe the proponents presentation could bs
made in that time.
It was consensus this be done, with the same amount of time being
permitted to the opponents and five minutes for rebuttal.
•
Mr. Garvey; This parcel of property is divided by Lark
Ellen Avenue.with a"portion .to the east and
west and running along Franci.squito Avenue.
We are asking that the portion to the east of Lark Ellen, along
Francisquito be zoned as C-1 at the corner for a distance of 150
feet and the remaining 150 feet of depth be allocated to R-P with
proposed professional buildings there. We have a proposed
architectural rendering of the property involved.
•
I direct attention to the Planning Commission decision. Emphasis
was on the limited depth creating some problem of design in lot
sizes and that is something that connot be over estimated. There
is 130 feet of depth running from Francisquito in a northerly
direction in which there would have.to be streets, certain right-
of-way and it is almost unusable for residential purposes. There
•
are enough problems of street designs without having to go to
vertical strip lots.
I do not think immediate action on'this property is a critical
test. If the position of the.property shows justification for
need for commercial use., due consideration should be given to it
whether the need is for today or four or "five months fiom now,.
because it requires time and planning. We feel this property
would justify a commercial return at this time which would
justify a business man investing there.
We have provided certain buffer zones. We have provided buffer
zones to the entire eastern portion of proposed professional
building. A buffer zone to the south of apartment buildings and
to the west we have provided another apartment building site.
We believe West Covina can stand more multiple dwellings than it
has and they do have.an economic base that tends to support the
City. We must take into consideration the future growth of the
City and whether there are enough neighborhood shopping areas.
There should be a.certain amount of reservation made for such
use of land.
-12- .,.
C C. 4-1.4-58 Page thirteen
z10 C.o. NO. 11.3 continued
We have hired an independent consultant to tell, us whether such
use here was right or not. I would present Mr. Simon Eisner and
ask him to give you the results of the survey made by his organ-
ization.
Mr. -Eisner: When -we took this job we realized we might
come up with adverse advic(p) as well as
advice in favor to the applicants. In our
studies we started from a premise that this must be justified
from a planning, or in other words, land use standpoint. We used
standards that have been generally accepted in the national
picture of those developed by Urban Land Institute of the Realty
Board and we made a rather thorough research of shopping facilities
• now on the land and serving the people. We found the closest
facilities were ni.ne-tenths of a mile, or about two minutes
driving time from the center of this site. Other facilities
ranged from 1.4 miles to the Glendora -Vine shopping area to 3.4
miles to the Eastland area. Each of these facilities, were serving
people within West Covina.. We took Francisquito area, Stassils
Market, the McDaniels site at Glendora, the Vine and Glendora
area, the West Covina Center, the Fairgrove Center, the Plaza
shopping center, includLng Shopping Bag Market, the Glendora-
• Amar Center, the market,on Valley at Pass and Covina Road and
again Eastlandi at Hiram's Market. If centers are a mile apart
they have a tendency not to overlap area of purchasing power
available to each of them,
The neat thing was driving time. Normally people will. drive not
in excess of six minuteE which places most of West Covina within
driving range.
•
We noted an earlier study presented to the Commission had included
much of territory close to existing markets. We did not, we
analyzed what we believed was the attracting power of each of
these centers. Where center was small there was less distance
and where facilities were strong we came a greater distance and
we included primary trading area for a. center in this location.
This is not to say this is the only location for shopping center
in West Covina. but we were asked what would it draw from without
doing actual economic damage to other markets. If this were to
be developed tomorrow it would cut into buying power in the area.,
but in over-all development of the area and from standpoint of
convenience and facilities available to have these centers at
approximately one mile would be sufficient to support them.
The next element was population. Is there support in terms of
numbers of people within area. We found from careful examination
• of material made available and a field check as to portion now
used and that which is vacant that within the area. there are
1980 families. We also found within the area there is additional
potential of some additional 1500 people. This was calculated
-13-
C.C. 4-14-58 Page fourteen
Z.C." No. 1:13 - continued
on the normal standard for subdivision of property in the City.
We took into consideration vacant lots when they appeared
within the area.
We used families instead of population in that families are related
to purchasing power while the number of people are not. We used
the most conservative figures that we could so that whatever we
came up with it would be the minimum available. We figured at
the present moment the population could support a food market of
13,000 square feet and that there is potential development of
20,000 square feet is a, reasonable assumption. We felt further
that the size of the marketing area stores that would exist over -
and above the market would be 24,000 square feet and in total
amount there would be 44,0000 of gross floor area. Some would be
used for storage and other purposes besides just sales.
We asked ourselves whether this, as a site for such use, was
suitable. Is this a location reasonable for a market. We have
a secondary highway located on the easterly side, Francisquito,
while not a major or secondary highway, is used considerably by
cars moving in this area. As we go further north Francisquito
•
is a secondary .street but in this area. it is a. collector street
for traffic rathern than
secondary.
.We asked the question as to whether or not this as a site would
be usuable for purposes of a market:. We examined the proposed
plan with revised buildings on it and found the proposed develop-
ment could be planned in such a. manner on this site so as not to
create an economic or personal hardship on abutting property.
•
I realize this is an unacceptable statement to every property
owner adjacent to this but I believe if this is done well that
there can be real benefits to the area and community without
causing any kind of hardship, financial or personal„
There should be a specific buffer of a 6-foot masonry wall be-
tween properties on the north and the shopping center. We have
suggested that no building be located closer than a minimum of
60-feet from that property line and that portion of land along
property line be planted withh trees and thus offer a physical
buffering. That no trucking or storage be in the rear of the
area. The major service area is to the side of the super -market,
almost completely enclosed, It is large enough for trucks to
get in and to get out.
There would be a wall and separator to the west and the east
would also be walled and .landscaped, and to.the south, abutting
on the street facing on residential buildings there would be a
• 10-foot planting strip and a three-foot wall to protect resi-
dences on the opposite side of the street. To protect abutting
property it is proposed by the developers that sidewalks be
constructed all around these properties.
-14-
•
C.Co 4-1 4-58
Z.C. No. 113 - continued
Page fifteen
The other major factor is of use on easterly side where there
is a proposed medical center and suggestion was made for a
Pharmacy to be located there. In order to make a transition
between residential and commercial some type of use that is
somewhat on the commercial. side is necessary but not necessarily
the type of commercial use that would tend to bring strips of
commercial. properties along.the street or highway, Professional
offices, if located in these areas, make successful buffering
and also make a. stopping point for any further commercial en-
croachment.
We believe we have hedged this in such a manner this can become
an entity and a successful one if Council would agree with the
proposals. We had no stake in this except as a specific charge
to us to find out whether or not this would be a good site for
such use and whether it; could be economically supported.
Everything learned about shopping center planning can be applied
to this area- You can create internal pedestrial traffic without
being involved in traffic movement. I believe the area. should be
landscaped to protect residential uses, that a masonry wall
should be provided and that signs should be rather vigorously
regimented so as not to interfere with residential, area. Signs
can be attached to buildings and not go above it.
The other elements of this plan is in relation to multiple dwell-
ings. If these are adjacent to shopping centers it is convenient
and it keeps the rental high and the vacancy factor low.
• This as a planning proposal is good and can fit into the location
with 13,000 square foot for market today or 20,000 square foot
for the future.
The spacing of this facility being nine -tenths of a mile from
its closest competitor is not too small a distance and could
become a real improvement in the area because of sidewalks and
other things.that could be added.
Mr. Garvey presented copies of studies made by Mr. Eisner's
organization to members of Council.
Mr, Co Powell of 1313 McWood Street, West Covina spoke in opposi-
tion. I
I am within the buffer zone of this request, and am representing
those in the area, It is our opinion there are three main
points of decision. The question is whether or not a need exists
• for such additional facility in this area in the southeast West
Covina area. This must be answered affirmatively or it is not
necessary to consider another point.
-15-
C.C. 4-14-58 Page sixteen
Z.G. No'. 113 - continued
We would like to discuss the value of that land as commercial
property and whether it is good as such a, use and whether good
for the City as a, whole, We would like to state that in a case
of this type the burden of proof lies with the proponents where
the welfare of citizens are affected. It would be an invasion
of a residential zone bringing about that type of activity which
we have attempted to escape by moving out here. Those whose back-
yards abutt this facility would suffer a loss of privacy they now
enjoy,
There was a 6-foot wall suggested but it was not told that there
is a slope to the land that the six foot wall would not prevent
people from looking into backyards. It wouldn't be of any use
• in multiple dwellings, that would go to second story, It i's
perfectly clear that a wall, no matter how tall, could not
eliminate the noise and the flashing of advertising lights.
Although suggestion was made of no signs above buildings their
drawing shown that there is one so planned to go above building.
It is,important to prove need beyond a shadow of a doubt.
•
We contend.this is not the best use for this property for a.
shopping center, All testimony indicates this is an installation
for a major market. The Precise Plan does not allow enough total
'
area for parking lots alone. It has been pointed out that parking
ratio is 4.3 to one which doesn't mean too much and looks like
more on.the picture than in actuality. If there is that parking
ratio then the shops will be so small that this would not come
up to what is being proposed as a major shopping center,
•
We believe there will be requests for further spreading of com-
mercial if this is permitted in the area, When this was first
proposed one area was left out and before hearing began it was
postponed because of another party wanting to go in and there
is no reason to think that more will not be asked for.
If we were to ask for a shopping center one block east of Sta.ssi
and Humphrey's it would be turned down as unnecessary. Then we
go on to Azusa Avenue, Hollenbeck and Citrus and the further
we get the more need there is for shopping facilities. This is
too close. If the southeast area needs it then put it far to the
east of Lark Ellen Avenue where it is needed.
Mr. Eisner stated Lark Ellen is a secondary highway but it happens
that it is a. deadend street on its two ends. If it is a good
approach street as has been stated to be used for trucks the
mileage posted would have to be removed and changed. I -can't see
it as a secondary as trucks coming from downtown could come off
the freeway southbound but in going north.they would have to
take another street to go west. It would be the same for trucks
coming from the east they would have to get off at another street
in order to get to Lark Ellen, but in going back they could get
on the freeway at Lark Ellen to go eastbound.
-16-
C.C. 4-14-58 Page seventeen
Z.C. NO. 113 -'continued
It would be a, very fine thing to have the sidewalks as has been
suggested but we would have to have them at more than just this
market area. They would be needed clear to the Wash since this
street is a. very heavy feeder street for children going to the
various schools in the area.
To have trucks travel on Lark Ellen would also place a burden of
improving the street, to carry such heavy traffic loads, on the
City,
On Azusa, Avenue we have a street that is already or will become
a,pa.rt of highway 39. -It affords ready access both coming and
going for both shoppers and suppliers. It is better located in
• the unserved area in the southeast section of the City. We
suggest that the proposed center would be a, better asset on Azusa
or Citrus or Hollenbeck or on any of those streets where it is
needed.
It was indicated by the Commission that there is a. master plan
for the C , ity which does not include commercial at this point and
so is opposed to that plan. The Commission pointed out that our
• present central business districts are far from complete and it
was indicated that such presently zoned areas should be developed
first before extending into any more such uses in the City.
We have never argued.the point; as to whether people could support
this market or not or if it -would be a. profitable venture. it
probably could be.
• In Mr. Garvey's rebuttal at the Commission hearing he stated our
objections could be summed up in a few words 'we just don't want
it', but that is only half of it; and there is much incomplete
factual information on * their part, The pictures tell a good
part of the story but not all of it.
They do not show the populated area enough and they do not show
what people are going where to shop. This doesn't tell need
figures it tells consumption figures. In spite of all the fine
figures presented here they never did just ask us. No one has
ever, been asked if we needed this,
They sent a, solicitor in the area requesting signatures to favor'
this zoning. He had a. head start of two weeks and obtained some
33 signatures. 'Then we got a, petition circulated and obtained
388 signatures against it. Seventy-three were in the actual
buffer zone and the balance were in the area immediately surround-
ing the buffer zone and all are in an area of less than a half
• mile radius. There were also 12 of the 33 signatures in favor
which were withdrawn and entered on the petition in opposition.
17-
0
C.C. 4-14-58 Page eighteen
Z.G.' NO, 113 - continued
This area, has produced many leaders in civic enterprises in the
City. They have attempted to help in order to make West Covina.
a. better place to live and to be'actively interested in the
community. We.must consider justice in this matter and compare
these people as against those people who are now just coming in
and attempting to make a change here.
We feel the argument of the proponents can be summed up in the
words, 'we do want it and there is a need'. However, we feel the
need is only on the part of thethreefamilies
es and they have lived
on the edge of West Covina, for many, many years and could have
become part of it andpaidtaxes into the City long ago but did not.
Now they see a chance for unearned increase in their property
values and they want to become part of the City, This is not a
need of the people in the neighborhood but only the selfish
desire of three people who now want.to come in for their purposes
yet have failed to support the City in the past,
Mr. J. Sedler of"16757 E. Alwood, Mr. Kaupp of 1:709 Franci.squitd
Avenue, Mr. Belas of 1240 South Lark Ellen Avenue, spoke in oppo'si-
tion. Mr. R. Rockwell of 1247 Wilson Drive stated he wa.s.in op-
position. Mr. Rockwell stated that it was his opinion that the
so called 60-foot setback at the rear was not actually a buffer
zone but actually a parking space and there would be traffic back
and forth.
Mr. Garvey indicated it was an open space for parking with a 6-foot
wall.
Mr. Garvey spoke in rebuttal,
You have 300 feet here and if you put streets in there with 66 feet
of dedicated right-of-way the 66 feet from 300 would leave 234 feet
into whit-h to fit lots and to take care of 25-foot setback lines
and you, would not get good residential, lots out of that. You
might get 30 lots out of 1.0 acres.
In answer to school children problem I believe that action of
Council, and their predisessors indicates an answer to that in
that they located Eastland across the street from Barranca School.
If Council considered a shopping center of that size not adverse
to children certainly several blocks of separa',tion of this to the
closest school.could not be considered adverse.
1 am not familiar with the fact that sidewalks cannot be put on
a hill but I would point out that San Francisco has accomplished
this and the only deficiency of sidewalk placement here would be
in areas projecting or owners not caring to go to the expense
of putting sidewalks in,
0 C.C. 4-14-58
Z.C. No. 113 - continued
Page nineteen
Mr. Eisner: The question was raised in regard to Lark
Ellen as a secondary street. It is indicated
as such on the master plan as adopted.
I was not authorized to make any house -to -house canvass to determine
where the people wanted to spend their money but we do have * exper-
ience in the field of placement of shopping centers. We had to
make a research and ask ourselves the various questions that we did
in order -to make basic conclusions.
I do not believe this land would lend itself to residential uses.
You could get some 30 or 35 lots based on the standards of the
City but you would have a whole series of intersections on
Francisquito if this were to happen..
There being no further testimony, the hearing was.declared closed.
The Planning Commission Secretary stated that petitions as stated
had been submitted to the Planning Commission and the figures in-
dicated on the petitions of the proponents and opponents had been
stated correctly with 12 of the 33 petitioners in favor withdrawing
• their signatures and going with those in opposition.
Mayor Kay: Do you feel Mr.- Eisner that this is an out-
standing location as compared to other in-
tersections in the near vicinity?
Mr. Eisner- We were not asked to answer that question.
we were asked whether a. center could be
• justified on this site. Perhaps there could
be better locations but this site has adequate relationship to
such facilities to fill the level of a neighborhood center and
could successfully function and serve the people in the area.
Mayor Kay: Do you feel this commercial, development would
fill the need in the southeast portion of
the City or would there be further, need for
such development- in the area?
Mr. Eisner:A center of this kind can be supported by
.between 1000 to 1500 families and if there
are as many as 3000 in the area, another
center of this size could fall into this area and not disturb the
economics of this one.
Mayor Kay: Would your recommendations include single or
two story buildings?
Mr. Eisner: We did not go into that but assume.a. 1 11 shop-
ping facilities would be one story height.
However, we were not involved in. the
architectural plan.
-19-
C.C. 4-14-58
Z.C. N'O.'113 - continued
Page twenty
Councilman Pittenger: I think that Mr.. Eisner has already
answered part of the question in my
mind when he said there might be a
more ideal site in'that section of the City. J.think we have
turned down two sites, also represented by Mr. Garvey, that were
much more ideal so far as people and traffic than this present
site. I also think that possibly we. are taking the attitude we
have to have a site in that area -as a commercial -site, but the
opponents brought out the point there wasn't to be any commercial
in that area. 1, too, drive to stores to shop and plan to continue
and want to do so.
The most important thing is that we -owe these people 'something.
We have gone a1ong on the ba,si.s.of the master plan,and they bought
their homes on that basis and I feel there is no justification
to change our master plan in that area of the City.
Councilman Barnes: How close are the large buildings to
the property line in the front.
Mr. Eisner; It is more than 80 or 90 feet from
property line from the street and 60
feet from rear property line.
Councilman Barnes: Don't'you feel that is too close to
Francisquito?
Mr. Eisner. It is not unusual and it is that you
have a space that lends itself to
parking..
Councilman Brown: This has been quite a presentation and
there is a different Precise Plan than
first submitted but it hasn't changed
my opinion from three weeks ago.
Mayor Kay: So far as I am concerned I think a
couple of good points were brought up
and if we considered an area with no
commercial development it is certainly our southeasterly section.
It was felt there would be need in some southeastern part of the
City, however, I think that Council has brought some of this upon
themselves and if there is -a feeling on the part of the Council
and the Commission that there is a, need for commercial in this
part of the City go back to what was said four years ago about
placing some potential zoning in the southeastern area and to in-
dicate where it should go after some planned study.
-There has been a basic
asic plan of commercial carried out throughout
the City except on the southeasterly part of the City and some which
had been stipulated have gone to residential areas.' I think it is
incumbent upon Council to set certain standards and make it clear
-20-
41
C.C. 4-14-58, Page twenty-one
.it does not want commercial in the southeasterly portion or else
pick a site and zone it on their own initiative in that this is
the best part of the City for such use.
Motion by.Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes
and carried that Zone Change No. 113 and Precise Plan No. 121 be
denied..
Mayor Kay ca,lled'a recess, Council reconvened at 10.05 P.M.
ZONE CHANGE NO..116 LOCATION.- North side of Puente Avenue, west
City Initiated of Azusa Avenue.
APPROVED
To consider the proposal to Reclassify from
Zone R-A, Potential R-P to Zone R--1 on Lots
• 1 through 4, inclusive and Lots 28 through
39, within Tract No. 22768,
Recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in their Resolu-
tion No. 580..
The Planning Commission Secretary presented and read Resolution
No. 580 of the Planning Commission recommending approval of this
Zone Change No. 116.
Mayor Kay opened the public hearing and stated that all those
desiring to testify inthis matter would rise and be sworn in by
the City Clerk.
There being no testimony presented', the hearing was declared closed.
• Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that the recommendation of approval by the Planning Com-
mission be accepted and that Planning Commission Resolution No.
580 be adopted.
CITY ENGINEER
TRACT NO, 17101
C.N. & W. Construction Co.
Request to start construction
of four houses prior to filing
of Final. Map.
APPROVED
LOCATION: North of Framcisquito
Avenue, east pf Sunset Avenue.
I I
The City Engineer recommended that the request be granted in
conformance with. policy established in connection with Tract No.
19453 and 23082 as follows,
1. That Bond and Agreement be provided for street improvements
for the entire tract.
2. That no occupancy permit be granted until Final Map is recorded.
-21-
• C.C. 4-14-58 Page twenty-two
TRo NO. 17101. continued
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Pittenger, and
carried that in accordance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer the request to start construction of four houses prior
to filing of Final, Map of Tract No. 17101 be approved, subject to
the recommendations of the City Engineer.
0
0
0
3"Ma "TIR
Metes & Bounds Subd.. LOCATION: Northeast corner
No. 135-90 (see Resolution 1321) of Yarnell Street and Willow
Frank H.-Ban.dy Avenue.
APPROVED
0.4 Acres - 2 Lots Area
District 11,
The City Engineer recommended adoption of a. Resolution accepting
Metes and Bounds Subdivision No. 335-90.
RESOLUTION NO. 1321 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
Approving Final -Sub- THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING
division, Map -of M & B THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF METES
Subdivision No.. 135-90 AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION NO. .1.35-90 AND
ADOPTED ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUB-
DIVIDER AND A SURETY BOND."
Mayor Kay: Hearing no objections we -will waive furt1her
reading of the body of the resolution.
Motion by Councilman Barnes,.seconded by Councilman Brown that
Resolution No. 1-321 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as
f o 1.1 ows:
Ayes. Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger,,Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
ACCEPT SEWER FACILITIES Spring Meadow and Lark Hill Drive
Tract No. 13892 Sewer District.
APPROVED.
LOCATION. Spring Meadow and Lark
Hill Drive.
Upon recommendation of the City Engineer, motion by Councilman
Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried that sewer
facilities in Tract No. 13892 be accepted and that cash deposit
in the amount of $981.27.be released.
PETITION' FOR SEWER A!11-57-J Ardilla Avenue and Ituni Street
REFERRED TO CITY ENGINEER Sewer District.
The City Clerk -stated there were 87 non -validated signers in
this district comprising 62% of the total district.
-22-
0
0
C.Co 4-14-58 Page twenty-three
A'11-57-J - continued
Mr. Smith of 1310 Halinor Street stated that this area was in
extreme difficulty regarding cesspool use and questioned if there
was any way to hurry this and push it through as it is a very ba.d
health problem.
Mayor Kay indicated the various steps that would have to -be taken
under the 1911 Act and that unless it would be resolved on a,
cash basis, which would facilitate it much faster, it would have
to go through the initial steps and take longer ever with it
being done As fast as possible. Mayor Kay indicatedthatuntil
the Resolution of Intention was put through it would be possible
for these people to have this done more quickly on a cash basis
and would give them about a, month to consider, doing so., .
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown and
carried that this petition be referred to the City Engineer with
the request that it be expedited as quickly as possible, particularly
Halinor and Siesta. Streets..
PLANNING COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE LOCATION. San Bernardino Freeway
OF MAY COMPANY DIRECTIONAL
SIGNS
DENIED
Mr. P. Nitri.ni, representing the May Company, Granada Realty and
Eastland Businessments Association requested that the directional
signs for Eastland located at Hollenbeck Street and at South Lark
Ellen Avenue be.permitted to continue for an.unlimited time,
Mr. Nitrini stated that it was felt these signs were still needed
for the purpose of direction to people entering the area,, and that
a communication had been received from Mr. Gerschler stating
these signs were to be taken down April 10, 1958.
Mr, W. DeMuth of the Center Merchants Association stated that 8
weeks ago A request was made -for permission to.put up equal
directional signs regarding the Center. Although they were
never formally notified it was,'Mr.
'Mr. Demuth's opinion that the
wishes of the Council had been that the business areas be given
an opportunity to post such directional signs along the freeway,
outside the fence.
Mr. DeMuth stated that since Council should decide whether they
will permit these signs or not it would seem unfair to have the
Eastland signs removed only to possibly have to put them up
again if the Center is allowed such signs. Mr. DeMuth'stated
that Mr. Bentley of the Plaza was in accord with these signs
also.
-23-'
CX. 4-14-58 Page twenty-four
PLANNING COMMISSION continued
Councilman Brown: I think it was agreed that all business centers
should have some type:of signs indicating
direction and approved by State so as not to
interfere with federalaid to the freeway here.
Mr...DeMuth: I do not think there is any conclusion reached
in regard to what constitutes a penalty in
relation to signs and where State may get more
if they do not put up such signs, Bef6re the groundwork is laid
on defining this matter I believe the advertising billboard
people will fight it.
Mr. Nitrini:
The signs indicated are not billboards they are
purely directional signs.and are in keeping with
other such type of signs and I do not believe
it is the type of sign that would interfere
with federal-a,id to the State,
Councilman Brown:
I do not know how.the federal government feels
about it but question how State Highway Division
feels about it.
Councilman
Pittenger:
We haven't accepted land along the
freeway and we may be out of order to
have the signs there now. I think
also that we are
over estimating the val,TTe of that sign and the
Eastland site can
be seen very clearly.
Mr. Nitrini;
The size of the site has nothing to do with it
•
it is the importance of the direction and how
to get to it.
Councilman Barnes: The fii'st application was for January
1, 1958 and then it was extended to
May at which time the action was for
these to remain to May 1, 1968 or until the sign ordinance was
adopted. I think it has now reached that pointandI do not
think we should grant your extension without granting other like
signs for the Center and the Plaza,
Mr. Nitrini: I have no objection to other signs
being erected, but I am here in
reference to the Eastland signs. How-
ever, I believe the other shopping areas are in order to ask for.
directional signs.
o
Councilman Pittenger: I think our first responsibility is to
• the City and how,it'stac'ks up with the
State by doing this. If we grant
this it may be accepting the service road and we know that is not
right as it stands now.
-24-
. C.C> 4-14-58 Page twenty-five
Mr. Nitrini: If it violates any State or Federal laws we
do not want the signs then.
Councilman Brown: I think all our centers should be allowed to
have directional signs but that all should be
of the same type and size perhaps. I think
the Eastland sign is too large. I think it
might be an imposition on someone having a sign and telling them
to take it down only to turn around and tell the business centers
they can put such signs up.
There should be no advertising for merchants but just directional
signs to indicate how to get to the business centers.
Mayor Kay: I would agree. 'We permit business to come
• into the City and then do not permit these
signs. .I see, no harm in directional signs for
any of the shopping centers and believe it would be in order.
I think it is a good thing to have on our freeway and I would
like a, policy established to have such adequate signs. Council
could establish such a. policy and submit it to the Planning
Department for approval and it be made an administrative policy.
Councilman Pittenger: I think that every directional sign
should be the same and that these
Eastland signs should, be taken down.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that
this matter be held over for discussion until next Monday evening.
Motion was not put to question by Mayor Kay.
• Councilman Pittenger: We told Mr. Nitrini and the May
Company they had a certain time to
have these signs up and I think that
now the signs should come down and if we can put such signs on
the freeway and not jeopardize ourselves with the State then we
should have the same type of sign for all.such use.
Mr. Nitrini: What are you gaining to tear this.down if you
are going to have directional signs.'anyway.
It is serving an important use.
Councilman Pittenger: I believe the size of the site is
sufficient to be easily seen and
there are two ways to get off the
freeway to approach the site.
• It was stated from the audience that a moratorium should be made.
on the new sign law until some reasonable thing can be done on it
and that there are certain signs that: should be permitted to
remain along with the directional signs and that more thought
could be put into this sign ordinance.
-25-
C.C. 4-14-58 Page twenty-six
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS - continued
Mr. DeMuthe I object to the procrastination on the part
of Council, but it seems to me that 8 weeks
ago Council was talking about giving us.some
type of sign and considerable time has elapsed so that you present
must have been able to make up your minds and now you want to
delay another week. We want to put up directional signs and Mr.
Nitrini desires to keep his up but you are not allowing him his
request nor are you allowing us ours. Why not give us a decision?
Councilman Brown: I believe we could reach a, decision by just
denying any such signs at all,
Councilman Brown stated that he would withdraw his second to the
motion made and that it was his opinion that a, precedent had been
set: but that the Eastland signs should come down, study this matter,
but that the other part is already passed. However, it was the
first of May or until the sign ordinance was adopted that these
Eastland signs were to remain.
Councilman Brown: I. didn't vote on the sign ordinance and I'm
glad I didn't because I: think it is ambiguous
in that we encourage persons to have businesses
in the City and then we do not allow them to.
advertise it.
Mayor Kay: Business is permitted to come Into the City
and then we. hamper it, I thank we should go
ahead with directional signs for any shopping
center or area to indicate the off -.ramp to get off the highway
• to get to it. If it is a question of detail and sire it can be
done at a. study meeting, The May Company can be required to
cut down the size if necessary but I think it an injustice to
all the shopping centers for this Council to encourage commercial
zoning and then not permit them to have what is needed and what
I feel is necessary to them.
Councilman Pittenger: Mr. DeMuth's group went over this
sign ordinance and approved it with
some changes that tney wanted and
which were made. We do not know whether or not the State is
going to permit this type*of sign.
Mayor. Kay: One sign is on State property already,
Councilman Pittenger: Under special use. Work out a policy
that is right let these direction
• signs come down and give them
directionalsigns if it is all right
all around.
-26-
• C.C. 4-14-58 Page twenty-seven
DIRECTIONAL S'IGNS'continued
Mayor Kay: What if the signs come down and then you establish
a policy to have such signs six weeks from now.
Isn't that unfair?
Councilman Pittenger: It would be if we thought we would go
along with the size of the signs now
up but I do not believe we would.
We also set a date for these signs to come down and I am tired of
granting these special privileges.
Mayor Kay: I would like to see the other centers have
these signs and I do not think it means abat-
ing this use but planning these other direc-
tional signs
Mr. Nitrini: It is our duty to come before Council to ask
.for whatever we feel is important to our
business and Council should have interest
regardless of how many times we come in with
these considerations or requests.
Acting City Mrgs: We have been to Sacramento and the
Los Angeles office in the last 30
days bringing up this problem in
directional signs. The number of
policies you are talking about establishing are bound up in the
State Highway Division. If you are speaking of directional signs
at on and off ramps of the.freeway, they are still studying that
subject.
. Mayor Kay: I am proposing a broad policy of approving
directional signs for the shopping centers,
Councilman Pittenger: I would be willing to go on record
in favor of it, but get signs off
now if that is policy of the State.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Mayor Kay that it is the
intent of this Council to secure directional signs for all of
the business centers and establish such a policy and grant the
extension of the directional signs of the May Company until,
this matter is settled.
Motion tied on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilman Brown, Mayor, Kay .
Noes: Councilman Barnes, Councilman Pittenger
. Absent: Councilman Mottinger
Mayor Kay: Mr. Nitrini, the instructions of the previous
permit required that within a certain period
-27-
•
C. C. 4-14-58
Page twenty-eight
of time the directional. signs would
have to be removed would seem to have carried through and as the
time limit has expired I would suggest it be conformed to as it
is indi.cated'by action of Council it has not granted an extension
of time.
PARKS & RECREATION
POLICY FOR USE OF Recommended by Recreation & Park
CORTEZ RECREATION Commission for adoption by the City
BUILDING Council.,
ADOPTED
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that the Policy for the Use of Cortez Recreation Build-
ing as submitted by the Park and Recreation Commission be adopted.
FEES AND CHARGES Recommended by Park & Recreation Com-
SCHEDULE FOR RECREA- mission for adoption by the City
TION BUILDING Council.
ADOPTED
Motion by Councilman Barnes,,seconded by Councilman Pittenger and
carried that the Fees and Charges Schedule for the Cortez Recrea-
• tion Building as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission,
be adopted.
PARK RESERVATION POLICY Recommended by -Park & Recreation Com-
ADOPTED mission for adoption by Council.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that the Park Reservation Policy as recommended by the
Park and Recreation Commission be adopted.
"RECREATION AIDE" Park '& Recreation Directorz This
CLASSIFICATION money has been figures into the
APPROVED budget but we do not have the classi-
fication. This matter was submitted
to the Personnel Officer and to the Acting City Manager for their
approval, and I believe they are in accord with it.
The Acting City Manager stated this matter had his
s approval.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that the creation of "Recreation Aide" classification
be approved at.the rate of $1.00 per hour.
The Park and Recreation Director stated in the way of a reminder
of the adjourned meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission on
Thursday at 8 P.M. in the City Hall.
The P & R Director stated that a letter approved by the Park and
Recreation Commission was to.be sent out to advise various groups
in relation to needed equipment to be put in the park areas.
-28-
• C.C. 4-1.4-58 Page twenty-nine
GENERAL MATTERS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None
0
•
0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
CITY ATTORNEY
SECOND READING
ORDINANCE NO, 570
Rezoning certain
property
(Zone Change No. 114)
ADOPTED
The City Clerk stated that an
appeal from the decision of the
Planning Commission with respect
to Zone Change No. 118 and
Precise Plan No. 1.17 had been
received fromJames L. Allen and
Albert L. Snell.
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST'COVINA REZONING
CERTAIN -PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINCENT AND
GARVEY AVENUES." (Bertolini)
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, -seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that further reading of the body of the Ordinance be
waived.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Pittenger
that Ordinance No. 570 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call
as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
ORDINANCE NO. PROVIDING FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF
SUPPLIES, SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT, (Introduction)
HELD OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 1.323
Accepting Dedication of
Easement (Precise Plan
No. 17)
ADOPTED
LOCATION: Workman Avenue and R/W
west of Citrus Avenue, between 345
S/O and Workman Avenue,
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
ACCEPTING EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA." (George Schofield,
Dorothy Rose Schofield)
Mayor Kay: Hearing no objections, we will waive further
reading of the body of the resolution. ' .
-29-
• C.C. 4-14-58 Page thirty
0
•
•
CITY ATTORNEY - continued
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that
Resolution No. 1323 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
RESOLUTION NO. 1322 The City Attorney presented and read,
Creating and Establishing "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
Industrial Development THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CREATING AND
Commission ESTABLISHING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
ADOPTED COMMISSION AND PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS
AND DUTIES."
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown that
Resolution No. 1322 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
In discussion there was some question as to what purpose it would
be to adopt this at this time and perhaps more information should
be obtained. Mayor Kay stated he felt this should be adopted now
in that there will be matters the City would be concerned with in
the next few weeks and it might be well to get a start on the
program even though thinking could be changed, Councilman
Pittenger indicated that it would be a simple matter to rescind
this Resolution so long as there are no appointments to it and it
was his thinking it is more for effect at this particular point.
RESOLUTION NO, SET DATE OF PROTEST HEARING ON ANNEXATION
NO. 161
Location: N/E and S/W corners of Barra.nca and Cameron Avenues.
HELD OVER FOR TWO WEEKS
RESOLUTION NO, 1324 The City Attorney presented and read,
Expressing sympathy "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
to Vernon R. Mottinger THE CITY OF WEST COVINA EXPRESSING
ADOPTED SYMPATHY TO MR. VERNON Re MOTTINGERe"
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and
carried that Resolution No, 1324 be adopted. Motion passed on
roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
-30-
• C.C. 4-14-58
Page thirty-one
RESOLUTION NO. 1325 The City Attorney presented and read,
Appreciation for past "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
services THE CITY OF WEST COVINA EXPRESSING
ADOPTED APPRECIATION TO MR, RALPH E. HARDIN
FOR HIS SERVICES AS FIRE CHIEF TO THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA."
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes that
Resolution No. 1325 be adopted. Motion passed on roll, call as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
RESOLUTION NO. 1326 The City Attorney presented and read,
Expressing appreciation "A RESOLUTION OF THE.CITY COUNCIL OF
of past services THE CITY OF WEST COVINA EXPRESSING
ADOPTED APPRECIATION TO MR. HORACE R. GREELEY
FOR HIS SERVICES AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF CIVIL DEFENSE FOR THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA."
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown
• that Resolution No. 1326 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call
as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
AMENDED REIMBURSEMENT Referred to City Engineer and City
• AGREEMENT #14 PRECISE Attorney by the City Council at their
PLAN #11 regular meeting of March 24, 1958.
APPROVED
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that Amended Reimbursement Agreement No, 14, Precise
Plan No. 11, be approved and authorization be given for the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the agreement,
City Attorney:
RESOLUTION NO, 1327
• Installing of sprinkler
system in Comida. Park
to be done by City forces
ADOPTED
-31-
In checking action of Council earlier,
advertising for bids did include labor
for installing sprinkler system in
Comida. Park so a. Resolution must be
adopted to have it done by the City
forces
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING
THAT A PROJECT FOR THE FURNISHING
OF ALL LABOR FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN COMIDA PARK CAN
BE PERFORMED MORE ECONOMICALLY BY DAY
LABOR AND ORDERING THE PROJECT DONE
IN THAT MANNER."
• C.C. 4-14-58 Page thirty-two
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes
that Resolution No. 1327 be adopted. Motion passed on roll
call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
RESOLUTION' 1328 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
Amending Resolution THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING
No. 1277 relating to RESOLUTION N0. 1277 RELATING TO THE
Senior Bldg. Inspector POSITION OF SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR."
ADOPTED
Mayor Kay: Hearing no objections, we will waive further
reading of the body of the Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Pittenger
that Resolution No. 1328 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call
as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
• RESOLUTION N'0. 1329 "A RESOLUTION OF THE .CITY COUNCIL OF
Amending Resolution THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING
No. 1.277 relating to RESOLUTION NO. 1277 RELATING TO THE
position of 'Recrea- POSITION OF 'RECREATION AIDE.'
tion Aide'
ADOPTED
• Mayor Kay: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of
the body of the Resolution,
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown that
Resolution No. 1329 be'adopted. Motion passed on roll call as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
RESOLUTION NO. 1330 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY' COUNCIL OF
Establishing class spec. THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ESTABLISHING
for 'Special Services CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIAL
Officer and 'Recreation SERVICES OFFICER AND RECREATION AIDE,''
Aide'
ADOPTED
• Mayor Ka.y: Hearing no objections, we will waive further
reading of the body of the Resolution
-32-
• C.C. 4-14-58
I*
•
RESOLUTION NO, 1330 - continued
Page thirty-three
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown that
Resolution No. 1330 be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
Ordinance rezoning THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REZONING
certain property CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1030
(Lot: 32 of Tract GLENDORA AVENUE." (Delaney)
14681 )
Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown and
carried that the Ordinance be introduced. and given its first
reading.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
REPORTS
BADILLO STORM DRAIN The Problem - Resolving a cooperative
program among our neighboring com-
munities and jurisdictions for both a
permanent and interim solution to relieve the impossible drainage
conditions of the Lower San Dimas Wash resulting from its deletion
from 'The Comprehensive Plan for the Control and Conservation of
Flood Water in L A 1 C t'
os es oun Y.
Realizing that it might be several years before a permanent
• solution could be agreed upon, the City of West Covinaproposed
an immediate interim solution to this problem and proposed the
sum of $125,000 as its share toward this coopera.tive solution
early in 1957. The City of West Covina then pointed out the
responsibilities of the other agencies and asked that they do
their part. Since that time the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District has offered to do its portion, which they believe to be
an open dirt channel from Orange Avenue easterly to Vincent Avenue
if an outlet could be provided to the west and if the construction
would be completed by the fall of 1958.
The Los Angeles County Road Department orally agreed to permit
the construction of the open channel in that portion of Badi.11o
Street, a major highway, within its jurisdiction. The State
Division of Highways, the County Engineer, and the U.S. Army
Engineers have refused to participate in this project. The Cities
of Baldwin Park and Covina have failed to answer our many formal
• and informal requests and conferences on the interim proposal.
They have failed to indicate any constructive suggestions or ideas
or even whether they would permit the project within their bound-
aries. Also, they have failed to reply to our several requests
for financial participation.
-33-
• C.C. 4-14-58 Page thirty -four
PUBLIC WORKS REPORTS - continued
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District has now proposed
an open channel of a, smaller size than that proposed by the City
of West Covina, On Tuesday April 15, 1958, the City Engineers
have agreed to meet with County Officials on this latter proposal.
At the suggestion of the City Administrator of the City of Baldwin
Park, I have called for a. meeting of the City Manager and two
Councilmen from each City with a representative from the Super-
visor's office. This meeting is to be held at 4:00 P.M., Thurs-
day, April 24th in the Council Chambers of the City of Covina.
I recommend that we be represented, and further, I recommend if
satisfactory agreements cannot be reached at the April 24th meet-
ing that the City of West Covina take immediate steps to solve
this.problem by another method.
I hereby request you to authorize the City Attorney and the
Director of Public Works to investigate the advisability of
removing the paved berm in Badillo Street westerly of Orange
Avenue, permitting the runoff of - storm waters to return to their
original westerly flow into the area of Baldwin Park,
Councilman Barnes: Ever since I have come on the Council
we have been fighting this Badillo
Drain to the north of us and I do not
think that the -citizens in the City can put up with it much
longer. It is costing the City a great deal, of money after every
storm and 4576 of this water runoff is from the County area and 4576
of it is from the City of Covina. The State is now lowering
Azusa. Avenue which will cause more flood waters to come through
the streets and San Dimas Wash. It is both these agencies that
can force more water in the City of West Covina by making it go
west and making it go south.
I think there is something wrong here and that we have talked long
enough. We have offered a practical. solution and nobody wants to
do anything about it. We have waited for other agencies to take
their responsibilities about this but we are the only ones that
have been trying to do anything about this and we are not the
cause of these problems as the water comes through San Dimas Wash,
through Covina. and through Orange Avenue. The 'berm' at the
westerly side of Orange stops it from taking its normal westerly
flow that it used to do for years.
Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and
carried that the City Attorney and Director of Public Works be
authorized to investigate the advisability of removing the paved
'berm' in Ba,dillo Street, westerly of Orange Avenue to allow
• storm waters to return to their original westerly flow onto the
area. of Baldwin Park.
Mayor Kay appointed Councilman Brown and Councilman Pittenger as
-34-
•
•
C.C. 4-14-58
PUBLIC WORKS REPORTS - continued
Page thirty-five
representatives from the City of West Covina Council to attend
the April 24th meeting as indicated in the report of the Public
Works Director.
A communication was received from G. T. McCoy, State Highway
Engineer in relation to freeway deficiency project and the 10
point program and part of the matter is still under study. It
was indicated by the Public Works Director that on April 11,
another letter had been filed with the State Department of
Public Works,Di.vision of Highways.
The Public Works Director indicated he had not heard anything
further on.participation request of Vincent.Avenue Bridge but
that there had been favorable recommendation from the Road
Department but nothing forthcoming from the Supervisors Office.
Reminder of League of California Cities Meeting to be held at
the California Country Club on April 24, 1958 at 7:15 P.M.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
We have received a report of the Revised Retirement Plan from
Ron Stever and Company and I believe this should take some action
to refer it to the employees of the City.
0 Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Brown and
carried that the Revised'Retirement Plan Report of Ron Stever
and Company be accepted and that it be referred to the City
Employees Association for study.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT REPORT Acting City Mgr.: I would recommend
this report be turned over to the City
Manager to implement the program for
accomplishing recommendations.
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and
carried that this report be turned over to the City Manager as
recommended.
RIDGE RIDERS AGREEMENT I think we should have authorization
to expend funds up to and not exceeding
• $1000.00 to attempt to accomplish the
first stage of this program. I would like to have some authority
to take three proposals to see if we can't move this structure with-
in the next.three weeks.
-35-
C.C. 4-14-58
CITY MANAGER - continued
Page thirty-six
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Pittenger that
the City Manager be authorized to spend up to, but not exceeding
$1000.00 for on site improvements for Ridge Riders lease.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL.FOR
Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded
PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE
by Councilman Barnes and carried that
VARIANCE NO, 227
Zone Variance No. 227 be brought before
•
Council for public hearing.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Motion by Councilman Pittenger,
REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION.
seconded by Councilman Barnes that
OF FUNDS FOR PRIVATE
a.ppropriation up to the amount of
ENGINEERING SERVICES -IN
$1000.00 be authorized to be used for
CONJUNCTION WITH CURRENT
private engineering services in con -
ANNEXATION STUDIES
junction with current annexation
APPROVED
studies, the expenditure of this money
•
to be subject to the approval of the
City Manager, with required
amount to be taken from the General Fund.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
• Absent: Councilman Mottinger
DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded
by Councilman Pittenger that Demands
in the amount of $124,565.43 as shown on Demand Sheets D-41, C-77
through C-82 be approved, this to include fund transfer in the
amount of $75,462.58.
Motion passed on roll call as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Barnes, Brown, Pittenger, Mayor Kay
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Mottinger
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
12 o'clock, midnights until Tuesday,.April 15, 1958 at 7:30 P.M.
•
-36-