Loading...
09-22-1958 - Regular Meeting - Minutes1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA September 22, 1958 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Mottinger at 7:35 P. M. in the''West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Barnes, with the invocation given by the Rev. Kenneth Knox of the Church of Christ. ROLL CALL Present,-, Mayor Mottinger, Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Barnes, (Brown - part time from 7:40 P. M.) Others Present: Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager; Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk; Mrs. Fern Merry, City Treasurer (part time); Mr. Harry C. Williams, City Attorney; Mr. Tom Dosh, Assistant Public Service Director; Mr. Malcolm C. Gerschler, Planning Coordinator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 8, 1958 CITY CLERK'S REPORT - Approved as submitted. PUBLIC SERVICE DIVISION PROJECT NO. C-70 LOCATION: Azusa Avenue between Vine ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS and Cameron Avenues. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL Mr. Flotten presented pertinent information relative to this project as to acceptance of Plans and Specifications by the Division of High- ways; authorization by the Division of Highways for the City to ad- vertise for bids as this was Gas.Tax Project No. 27, and awarding of the bid for this project with proper notice mailed to the Division of Highways. Mr. Flotten stated that the recommendation was to accept the street improvements, with authorization to release the bond, subject to veri- fication of damage claim paid to property owner by the contractor. Mr. Dosh stated tha,t'in the process of doing this work the contractor had damaged private property. The property owner stated that he would accept the amount of $25.00 from the contractor to cover the cost of damage and that it has been indicated by the contractor that this amount has been paid. However, since the property owner is out of town at present and the matter cannot be verified until his return it was suggested that this be approved but subject to verification by the property owner, in writing, that the amount indicated for damages incurred has been received by him. C. C. 9-22-6$ Page Two • PROJECT NO. C-70 - continued • Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried that street improvements in Project No. C-70 be approved and authorization be given for the release of. Federal Insurance Company Bond No. 9670132 in the amount of $11,027.65, subject to the verifi- cation of damage claim paid to property owner as indicated. PROJECT NO. C-7:1 LOCATION, Intersection of lBarranca ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS Street and Workman Avenue. Traffic, Signals CONDITIONAL APPROVAL Mr. Flotten presented pertinent information relative to this project as to estimated cost, proper advertising of bids and authorization by theCounty Road Department to award this bad. It was indicated that expenditure on this project was spread between theCountyof Los Angeles, City of Covina and the City of Nest Covina, with Covina pay- ing half of the cost and the County and City of West Covina paying one -quarter of the costs each. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried that street improvements (traffic signals) in Project No.C-71 be accepted and authorization be given for the release of Indemnity Insurance Company of North America Bond No. M-136539 in the amount of $6,627.00, subject to the receipt of proportionate share of the cost (by the City of West Covina) from.the City of Covina and the County of Los Angeles. . PROJECT NO. C-77 APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS APPROVED AND AUTHORIZA- TION GIVEN FOR EXPEN- DITURE OF MONIES FROM LOCATION: Workman Avenue, 1,50 ft. east of To.land Avenue to Astell Avenue. Mr. Flotten presented'and read the report of the Engineering Department. STREET LOWERING FUND It was indicated that this matter had been put out for informal bid since it was under $2,000.00 as the contractor doing work next to this tract had indicated he would do the work in the amount of $2,995.00.. The lowest informal. bid received was in the amount of $2,600.00. Mr. Alassa stated that extra copies of the informal bads had been given to zm6mbers of Council. Mr. Aiassa indicated that the amount of $1,900.00 had been budgeted for this work and requested authori- zation from Council to spend $95.00 more from the Street Widening and Lowering Fund to be added to the budgeted.amount :for lowering and reconstruction of existing pavement on Workman Avenue. 0 • r� �J J Co C. 9-22-58 Page Three PROJECT NO. C-77continued Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Barnes that Plans and Specifications in Project No. C-77 be approved, and authorization be given the City Manager to take the amount of $95.00 from the Street Widening and Lowering Fund to be put with the $1,900.00 budgeted, to accomplish thelowering and reconstruction of existing pavement on Workman Avenue as directed in Project No. C-77. Motion passed on.roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Nces: None Absent: Councilman Brown TIME EXTENSION OF .AGREEMENT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Hollen- Tract No. 21366 beck Street and Merced Avenue. Walker Built Homes (August 19, 1959) Mr. Flotten presented and read the APPROVED communication, dated September 15, 1958, making this request for time extension of agreement per Herbert L. Braun, Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried that the request for time extension of agreement in Tract No. 21366 be granted to August 19, 1959. RESOLUTION" NO, 1440 The City Clerk presented ACCEPT BOND "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ZONE VARIANCE NO. 186 CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV- Sta Timothys Church ING BOND TO GUARANTEE THE COST OF CERTAIN ADOPTED IMPROVEMENTS AND THE TIME OF COMPLETION IN ZONE VARIANCE NO. 186 IN SAID CITY," LOCATION: North side of Puente Avenue, between Wa.lnuthaven ,and Hartley Street. Accepting United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Bond in the amount of $700.00. Mayor Mottinger: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Reso- lution. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Pittenger that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes: None Absent: Councilman Brown Said Resolution was given No. 1440 Co Co 9-22-58 • RESOLUTION NO. 1441 APPROVING FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT NO. 215661AND ACCEPTING AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SURETY BOND CONDITIONAL ADOPTION Page Four The City Clerk presented and read "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT NO.21566 ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS THEREIN OFFERED, ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND A SURETY BOND TO SECURE THE SAME. LOCATION: Northerly corner of Sunset and Francisquito Avenues. 28.4 Acres - 105 Lots Area,District II, Southwood Construction Co. Accept Seaboard Surety Company Bond No. 522995 in the amount of. $101,650.00 for street and sewer improvements. Mr. Flotten stated that the breakdown on this was $81,400.00 for street improvements and $20,250.00 for sewer installation with recom- mendation for acceptance by the City Engineer as all of the conditions of the tentative map have been met. Mr. Dosh stated that the Street Plans have not been signed as yet, although they are in the hands of the City Engineer and are satisfac- tory and will probably be signed very shortly. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes that said Resolution be adopted, subject to the City Engineer's signed approval of the Street Plans. Motion passed on roll call as follows-, Ayes. Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes. None Absent: Councilman Brown Said Resolution was given No. 1441. Councilman Brown entered the Chambers at 7,.,40 P. Mo %-I 0 C. C. 9-22-58 • Page Five RESOLUTION NO. 1442 The City Clerk presented Opening 11 Lot Tract No.19906 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Street and Highway Purposes OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, (Farlington Street) ACCEPTING FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES ADOPTED CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HERETOFORE GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO SAID CITY." Mayor Mottin.ger; Dearing no objections., we will waive further reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Pittenger that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows; Ayes; Councilmen Heath, Brown, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes; None Absent; None Said Resolution was given No. 1442. DISTRICT A°11-57-5 Cortez Street, Hollenbeck and Vanderhoof Drive Sewer District. is The teport of the County of Los Angeles Health Officer was read and the recommendation was for the acceptance of the report and that the City Council authorize the City.Engineer to proceed pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808, Division.4, Streets and Highways Code. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Heath ind carried that the preliminary report of District A111-57-5 be accepted and the City Engineer be instructed to proceed as indicated, with the Report of the County of Los Angeles Health. Office to be spread in full upon the `Minutes. The report of the Health Officer'sta.ted as follows. "RECOMMENDATION. It is respectfully recommended that sanitary sewers be installed in this district. "ANALYSIS; On January 10, 1958, this Department recommended to your Honorable City Council that sanitary sewers be installed in the Vanderhoof Drive Sanitary Sewer District, A111-57-5, City of West Covina,, as a measure necessary to the protection of public health. Since that date an alteration has been made in the boundaries of this proposed sanitary sewer district, namely; the addition of the area, between Citrus Avenue and Azusa Avenueo These combined areas are now known as the Cortez Street, Hollen- beck Street and Vanderhoof Drive Sanitary Sewer District, A'11-57-5, City of hest Covina;, as shown on the attached map. "During the course of our investigation of that portion of the district lying easterly of Citrus Avenue, which we covered in our original letter of recommendation, 39 house -to -house calls were made. Of this number 13 occupants were not at home or did notanswer the 0 0 0 0 C. C. 9-22-58 Page Six DISTRICT A°11-57®5 - continued Health Officer report - continued. - door. Of the 26 property owners or tenants actually contacted, 6 or 23%© reported having experienced 'trouble with their indi- vidual subsurface sewage disposal systems. During the course of our investigation of that portion of this district lying westerly of Citrus Avenue (just completed) 143 house -to -house calls were made. Of this number 22 occupants were not at home or did not answer the door. Of the 12.1. pro- perty owners or tenants actually contacted, 44 or 36.3% reported having experienced trouble with their, individual subsiarface sewage disposal systems. The combined totals of both surveys reveal that 182 house -to -house calls were made-. Of this number 35 occupants were not at home or did not answer the door. Of the 147 property owners or tenants actually contacted, 50 or 34% reported' -having experienced trouble with their individual subsurface sewage disposal systems. They complained that the ,seepage pits filled up causing raw sewage to back up into the house plumbing fixtures or to overflow on to the surface of the ground, also that frequent pumpingandcleaning out of :the seepage pits or the construct -ion of. new pits was necessary. "The.soil within the area of this proposed sanitary sewer district consists of loam, clay and silt., This type of soil is not con- ducive to the proper functioning of any type of individual sub- surface sewage disposal system as it has very poor leaching qualities. "In view of our survey, I, the undersigned Health Officer of the County of Los Angeles, having been officially designated by the City Council of the City of West Covina to perform public health services for the City of West Covina, do hereby recommend that proceedings be instituted at once for the installation of sanitary sewers in the Cortez Street, Hollenbeck Street and Vanderhoof Drive Sanitary Sewer District, City of West Covina, asanimprove- ment necessary to the protection of public health and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808 of the Streets and Highways Code'." RESOLUTION NO. 1443 Determining the construction of sanitary sewers is neces- sary as a health measure District A'11-57-5 -ADOPTED Mayor Mottinger.- The City Clerk presented "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINAv CALIFORNIA, DE- TERMINING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF CER- TAIN SANITARY SEWERS TS NECESSARY AS A HEALTH MEASURE IN VJJ,��,sCENT AVENUE AND OTHER STREETS KNOWN AS THE CORTEZ STREET, HOLLENBECK STREET AND VANDERHOOF DRIVE SEWER DISTRICT." Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. Co• C. 9-22-58 Page Seven • RESOLUTION NO. 1443 ® continued Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes-. Councilmen Heath, Brown, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes., None Absent-. None Said Resolution was given No. 1443 SCHEDULED MATTERS HRARTWGR ZONE VARIANCE NO. 238 APPLICANT: Delhaven Company - Bainbridge and Club UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 30 LOCATION: Northwest corner of California APPROVED and Bainbridge Avenues. To permit a recreational center, privately owned, to permit a swimming • pool, bath house, recreational building and play yard, owned and operated by non, -profit association of home owners, in Zone R-1. Zone Variance to permit the described recreational center, privatdy owned, in Zone R-1. Recommended for approval by Planning Commission Resolutions No. 629 and No. 634. These two items were taken up together by Council at regular meeting on August 25, 1958. The hearing was closed and the entire matter held over for further study, - September 8, 1958 ® held over per letter of request by applicant to September 22, 1958. Mr. Aiassa indicated that certain comments had been made by Council at their meeting in relation to revision of the plan on the matter of traffic and setback. A report had been submitted and the items had been discussed at the last meeting. Councilman Pittenger: How many parking stalls provided? Mr. Dowding Approximately 25 parking spaces inside 1605 W. Belmont the fence line at the club with exten- West Covina sive parking outside the club. We did not want to embarrass the neighbors in 0 any way. 0 C. C. 9-22-58 Page Eight • • • Z.V. 238 and U.U.P. 30 ® continued Councilman Pittenger-, There is something here that concerns me quite a bit. Across the street are two people who are agAinst this and they will have to live with it, and that is something I am concerned with quite a bit. Here is a use, not residential, in a residential area and you do not automatically allow a man practically right next door to join it. You have lots west and south and with membership closed. These pros- pective owners couldn't get into the club and yet they will have to listen to,the noise all summer long. Mr. Dowding: In these clubs there appears to be about a 10% turnover in a year.so we feel there is ample opportunity for people who are interested in this recreation to be able to join within a reason- able length of time. There will be no exclusion. It has been found that 25% to 30% of people in a.given area will join such a club and we have more than enough memberships to provide for this. Councilman Pittenger: Automatically anyone isn't eligible for joining the club, membership is voted upon by members. Mr. Dowding. The reason for that is that we are creating a private recreational use 'here and we feel it is to protect the club and neighborhood. Councilman Pittenger: If certain parties live and move there it is hard to protect the neighborhood. I have heard of contractors who have built such units and anyone living near it was automatically able to joing the club and here there are two.persons that could be kept out from now on. Mr. Dowding: the neighborhood unless we groups asking for approval have an obligation to these class public relations. Councilman Brown° Mr. Dowding-, We have a'definite public responsibility in a club like this and would not do anything to embarrass any individual in had a very good reason. There will be other to set up such clubs in this area and we groups also to create very good and first Is the map on Page 7 the total area where membership comes from? This is our solicited area and we expect to draw 90% of our membership from this particular area. CoCo 9-22-58 Page Nine • Z.V. 238 and U.U.P. 30 ® continued Mr. Dowding - continued: We have set aside certain applications for homes being built in the Delhaven tract. Mayor Mottinger. In relation to parking and area to the west. There are three lots involved in the property you are proposing. Has any consideration been given to using only two lots adjacent to Bain- bridge Avenue and taking lots 7 and 8 on the opposite side so that more and ample parking could be obatined within the premises and at the same time you would have a buffer-ing condition only on one side of the property, with the rest being street frontage? Mr. Dowding,. We had considered two sides. The first side was the northwest corner of Bain-' bridge and Broadmoor. We discussed this with the Planning Commission and it was decided that the best location was on California adjacent to the school corner and adjacent to traffic noise on California. Mayor Mottinger I am thinking in the terms of making the property deeper and making more parking space,. My principle objection is there is really not ample parking space on the property itself. On commer- cial areas we require certain parking.space for the number of build- ings and the people inside so that all parking can be accommodated on the property of the applicant. Certainly 22 parking spaces are not ample to take care of the need. Mr. Dowding: We feel it will take care of normal day to day need and the only time there will be a greater demand will be when there are social functions at night and with permission of the school i . district to use their off-stree - t parking there when that is not in use and with the periphial parking we feel we have sufficient. Councilman Pittenger: I do not set too much store by people using school ground parking. Churches have off-street parking and yet the people still park in the street, andthere is no way to enforce this and you can have the whole corner covered by cars. Mr. Dowding: We have gone on record among the member- ship not to embarrass the neighbors with a parking situation. We haven't discussed that in full as to how we will handle it, although it may be by -way of a fine, but in any case we plan to see that parking does not become a problem. • C.C. 9-22-58 Page Ten • Z, Vo 238 and U. Uo P, 30 ® continued Councilman Heath: I think that this parking problem could be controlled by the City should it become a nuisance. I do not think it will, however, judging by what I saw at the installation similar to this in Anaheim. If it should become detrimental, signs could be posted by the City and then the club should find Its own way out of the problems At the request of the Mayor the City Clerk re -read the recommendations of the Planning Commissions Councilman Pittenger-. I am opposed to this use in an R-1 zone, I think that parking is going to be a problem and that traffic is going to be a problem and I do not think it fair to the people who live and bought these homes in the area without a buffer. If adequately buffered for sounds and lights and things that go with this use I might feel differently about it. It is permitted to operate until 1:00 A.M. and in summation I do not think this is a..residential use at all. I am very surprised the Planning Commission approved it. Councilman Heath: I believe the recommendations actually Indicate 10:00 P.M. during week days • and 12:00 midnight on Saturdays. I think that those times are rather agreeable times. So far as traffic and parking I still feel that if it becomes a prob- lem I think it can be worked out with the club and if no agreement could be reached the City has the right to post signs making a time limit so I think it is a matter that can be taken care of if it is found to be necessary. This type of use in Anaheim is in the cetner of a residential area with the rear of the houses no more than 60 feet away from the grounds. There are no buffers down there and from the questions we asked there didn't seem to be any complaints, Councilman Barnes. I would like to add to Councilman Heath's statement in that the use in Anaheixi was built in conjunction with the tract and I did understand they sold the homes a little further .way from this use at a slightly higher price than those that butted up against this recreation area -because of noise. However, there weren't any complaints and it was well controlled. Councilman Brown: Who owns the vacant property from Cali- fornia -to Scofield' Mr, Dowding-. They are being built up by Delhaven and Company and those particular lots expect to have January 1st completion.. 0 C. C. 9-22-58 • Z.V. 238 and U.U.P. 30 - continued Councilman Barnes: I woul Page Eleven d I am also in favor of this because we have a Ii'ttle over 200 pools in the City and I believe there is a need for this sort of thing in an area where you do not have so many pools. I have looked this matter over pretty thoroughly and I think it is a real good program. Mayor Mottinger: The Youth Council and other groups are endeavoring to get the City interested _in swimming pools for the entire public and I believe this would tend to distract from such enterprises as this. Councilman Barnes: I took that into consideration when I called up the Police Department and asked regarding private pools throughout the City, which they keep a record of. They reported there was around 200 private swimming pools in the City. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Barnes that Zone Variance No. 238 and Unclassified Use Permit No. 30, for Delhaven Company - Bainbridge Club, be approved, subject to the recommendations and limitations imposed by the Planning Commission, and with further stipulation that the block wall at the front of the property be con- structed in accordance with Page 3 of the Bainbridge Club Proposals dated September 15, 1958. Councilman Pittenger: :Has Page 3 been approved by the Planning Department? Mr. Dosho The traffic engineer found that the only objection to a situation like this is that cars parking during daytime with school in session might create .a hazard. This coufd -be alle- viated by eliminating parking on California Avenue during school hours. Councilman Heath: This would be approved by Planning Department? Mr. Gerschler: Yes. The motion was seconded and carried upon question, by the vote of three Ayes, Councilmen Heath, Brown and Barnes; and a vote of two Noes, Councilman Pittenger and Mayor Mottinger. • C. C. 9-22-58 AMENDMENT TO ADOPTED PRECISE PLA14 OF DESIGN -NO. 109 Simon F. Pepper and Earl Gish HELD OVER SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT Page Twelve LOCATION: South side of Merced Avenue, between Willow and Garvey Avenue. Recommended for approval by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 588. First hearing held May 12, 1958. Hearing,closed and decision held over pending meeting with Planning Commission. Meeting of May 26, 1958 study session with Planning Commission not complete ® decision held over. Meeting of June 9, 1958 ® study session with Planning Commission not complete. Decision held over to July 28, 1958 per letter of request dated June 20, 1958 from proponents which was read at regular meeting of June 23, 19 58 . Matter held over from July 28, 1958 to August 25, 1958 pending result of conference between Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Gerschler. August 25, 1958, Ii,eld over until September 8, 1958 per request of applicant. September 8, 1958, Held over pending result of Planning Commission and City Council joint study meeting. September 22, 1958, It was indicated that there had been a meeting with the applicants and the applicants.' architect and they are develop- ing a new set of plans on this. Supposedly, the applicant was to present a written request to hold this matter over so that the develop- ment could conform with suggestions made. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded -by Councilman Barnes and carried that Amendment to Adopted Precise Plan of Design No. 109 be held over, subject to the approval of the applicant. ZONE CHANGE NO. 115 LOCATION. West side of BarrancaE Street, PRECISE PLAN NO. 124 south of Walnut Creek Wash. Pacific Development Co. APPROVED First hearing held on April 28, 1958 Hearing closed. Referred back to the Planning Commission with recommendation to deny. No action on Precise Plan no. 24. Item removed from Agenda of May 26, 1958 per letter of request from Pacific Development Co. dated May 21, 1958 and placed on agenda of July 28th, • Co C. 9-22-58 Page Thirteen • Z. C. NO..115, P. P. NO. 124 -W continued Item removed from Agenda of July 28, 1958 as per letter of request from Pacific Development Co. dated June 19, 1958. Placed on Agenda of August 25, 1958 per request of proponent dated July 23, 1958, read at Council meeting on July 28, 1958. Held over to September 89 1958 from meeting of August 25, 1958 for further study of R-3 report. Mayor Mottingero Is there any action by the Planning Commission after joint meeting? Mr. Gerschler: Not in this case. Mayor Mottingero I am wondering whether Council is in a position to take final action this even- ing or not. .Councilman Brown: I believe so in that this was stopped by a tie vote, and then stopped again by a tie vote at the last meeting and we were to give a decision after discussion at joint meeting of Council and Commission. . Councilman Heath: I have been against this proposal mainly because of the fact that I was afraid what would happen in the matter of three or four years if this development changed hands. I brought this point up at the study meeting and realized there is nothing that we can do to control that. The point that struck me was the fact that we have a potential R-3 zone and it was pointed out that in 99 and 9/10ths, if not 100%, of-_ the time when something is zoned potential the person who develops it"� can get a. firm zoning. On the basis of this, this developer has gone ahead and spent lots of money and come up with what I call a treneudous plan and which I think we can insist that he carryout. } We do have somewhat of a moral obligation here in that we have possibly insinuated this was a good R-3 zoning, I have had to change my thinking on this over what I have said before and bring these matters out as to why I changed my thinking. I was looking for a way to control this development and the other reason is that I think we have somewhat of a moral obligation to this developer. I will go one step further in that I have taken time to go to Covina and read their Minutes of the last meeting of the Covina Council where they were confronted with the idea of putting in apartments to the east of the shopping district across the street from this one, but slightly further up. One Councilman requested this be denied without prejudice, which was seconded and the matter was carried through to permit the developers to come back and develop not under zone change but under variance. Evidently Covina is going to put apartments around the development across the street. • C. C. 9-22-58 Page Fourteen • Z.C.NO.115, P.P.NO.124 - continued Councilman Brown., The City of Covina cannot put anything across the street from this because we own north of the freeway so what they do does not affect the homes. This zone change was denied once by Council before it was bought so at the time it was purchased by basic developer there was some doubt as to whether they would get R-3 on this area. Councilman Heath: Did they know why? Councilman Brown: It was suggested that R-3 be taken off the map. Councilman Pittenger: I do not believe it was denied. What we did, and Mr. McCullen is in the audience and he was on the committees was to set up conditions on this property and left it that way and it was never acted upon. The applicant never filed a new appeal, just dropped it and sold the property. We made it so tough that it never was built by the original applicant, he just dropped it. The Minutes will show it was never acted upon, • Mr. Gerschler: The case was formally withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Councilman Brown: Insinuation was it would be denied with a 3-2 vote, Councilman Pittenger: I do not think it was a vote but that the applicant just withdrew it. When we had a study session we set up stipulations on the size of apartments, land coverage, streets, walls and about everything else. This plan exceeds those requirements. They are making apartments 1024 square feet and joint committee requested 500 square feet. On single apartments they are coming in with 784 square feet and the stipulation was for 400 square feet so these are almost double in size. The only thing that hasn't been met is the ground coverage. We set 25% but there has been a change in the acreage because flood control has reduced it so he is in for higher than the 25% permitted, I think that he has tried to meet all the requests regarding this and if this had come back or been presented before, we would have been almost duty-bound to adopt it. When.a precise plan comes in that we can accept we do so and we have almost 100% of the original requests accomplished on this. Councilman Barnes: After reviewing the Minutes of the meet- ings previously held on.this property and in checking the setbacks from the street and the size of the apartments, as Councilman Pittenger has mentioned this does exceed anything previously submitted and I think it C� • Co C. 9-22-58 Page Fifteen 2, C, NOa 115, P, P, NOo 124 - continued Councilman Barnes - continued: goes far and above what the people even asked for. In checking this area I found this is the only piece of R-3 or potential R-3 in that particular area that I can see that is on the frontage road so that it has a chap 9 to be apartments of this type. I feel this is a very good apartment house site. Councilman Brown: I.did not make the study meeting on this. Has a different Precise Plan been sub- mitted than shown to Council at last meeting? It is undoubtedly different. Councilman Pittenger: This has the same particulars as in the last precise plan presented. Mr, Aiassa: We -made a comparison of this against the report of Mr. Gerschler°s on R-3. We took three cases and this was one, to see how this would follow through -in relation to the report. Councilman Pittenger: There were additional Planning Department remarks to be carried through on this which were as follows: 1) Increase in ground coverage due -to increasing floor area of units as follows: Plan dated 3-21-56: No. of Units: 1 BR 2 BR Carports Acreage (Net) Coverage 192 728 Sq. Ft 850 Sq. Ft. 192 9.3 26% New Plan 196 782 Sq. Ft. 1024 Sq. Ft. 245 (recommended) 7.67 37% Note - reduction in net acreage due to additional widening of Wash,. 2) Additional parking facilities suggested will require some modi- fication of the plan submitted. Other items may be accommo- dated without major changes in the plan, 3) All specifications based upon R-3 type as shown in report "Apartments for West Covina." Mr. Gerschler stated that item 3 .implies the recommending of all of R-3B specifications and would make it a part of this recommen- dation, Co Co. 9-22-58 Page Sixteen 2.C.NO.115, P.P,NO.124 - continued Councilman Barnes; I would like to ask one question. In back of this property when discussing this matter I believe you did mention something, Mrs Gerschler, about trash collection. Would that be taken care of under R-3B? Mr. Gerschler; Yes, it would be 20 square feet enclosed for such use for each unit. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes that Zone Change No. 115 and Precise Plan No. 124 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission, plus the additional recommendation and suggestions of the Planning Department under R-3B recommendation in the Report of Apartments -im West Covina and wi-tb further stipulation that there be one swimming pool and recreation area shown for each of the six parcels shown on the Precise Plan. Upon question the motion and second was carried with four Councilmen voting Aye, Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Barnes and Mayor Mottingery and one No vote, Councilman Brown. Mayor Mottingero For the benefit of those not fully aware of this problem, I would state that this was a controversial issue before all but one of the members of Council, Councilman Brown, was on the Council. The way these last applicants have worked on this it has been amazing to me that they have agreed on practically everything suggested by the joint recommendations committee, which consisted of two members each of Council and Commission and representatives of the proponents and opposition back in 1956. One thing that has irritated me on this particular matter has been the pressure put upon us as a Council to take action one way or the other. It has been pressure that got almost to the point of "black- mail Each one of us has endeavored to act on this matter to the best of his ability, whether for or against, and after meetings we go out and have our coffee and are friends about it, even though there is distinct difference of opinions Pressure has not only been directly from the opposition and the pro- ponents but from folks that have also been interested in this. I hope that I speak for Council in the matter of their voting that they made their own decisions on what was best for the City of West Covina and for the property owners and not due to any pressure by individuals interested in this matter. • C. C. 9-22-58 Page Seventeen Mayor Mottinger called a recess. Council reconvened at 9:05 Pe Me PRECISE PLAN AND RECLASSI- LOCATION: Northwest side of California FICATION NO. 128 (1405) Avenue, north of Walnut Creek Wash. Jack and Anna Dubrove HELD OVER TO MEETING OF Request to reclassify from Zone R-A, OCTOBER 20, 1958 AT Potential C-2 to Zone C-2o REQUEST OF APPLICANT Recommended for approval by the Planning Commission Resolution No,612, Hearing held by the City Council at regular meeting of July 14, 1958. Hearing closed and decision held over until meeting of July 28, 1958, at which time it was determined to hold over this matter until August 11, 1958 and that decision should be predicated on basis of the result of a meeting with County Flood Controls August 11., 1958, Council voted unanimously to withhold decision until new study to be presented by Mr. Harold L. Johnson had been reviewed. Matter scheduled for this date per letter of Mr, Jack I. Dubrove • September 8, 1958 - held over to meeting of September 22, 1958 at the, request of the applicant. Mr. Flotten stated that a letter had been received from the applicant who agreed to postponement of this matter until meeting of October 20, 1958. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Brown and -carried that this matter be held over at the request of the applicant. ZONE CHANGE NO. 128 LOCATION: North side of San Bernardino Moritz and Mila. Pick Road, midway between Irwindale Avenue APPROVED and Azusa Canyon Road, PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN Reclassify from Zone M and C-1 to Zone NO, 136 8-3 NO ACTION NECESSARY Case referred to City Council due to time limit and Planning Commis- sion tie vote due to absent members Planning Commission Resolution No, 641. Precise Plan of Design No, 136, in relation to Zone Change No, 128, received Conditional Approval by the Planning Commission under their Resolution No, 640 which was contingent on the action of the. City Council on Zone Change No, 128„ Maps were presented and Mr. Flotten presented and read Resolutions No. 641 and 640 of the Planning Commission, C. Co 9-22-58 Page Eighteen Z.C.NT0,128 and.P.P,N0,136 - continued Mayor Mottinger opened the public hearing and stated that all those desiring to present testimony :should rise up and be sworn in by the City Clerk, M. Stern, Jr. Since the presentation of the small Architect for Proponents scale plan we have reviewed the items and recommendations of the Planning Department and made revisions in the little scale drawing plan. We have presented here this evening on the large plan the finalized development of the property as we would propose it, One point we would like to mention is the basic change regarding the frontage road. At one time we were not -contemplating the development of the frontage road but in discussion with the Planning Commission and everybody else concerned we believe it would be better to put it further back from San Bernardino Road, In so doing, the final plan only indicates 196 units, whereas there.were 200 units, and we have lost 4 units to bring the property back, but feel it would be best for the development. This plan has a cul-de-sac down the middle with buildings two-story. in construction. All are in excess of minimum requirements and in strict accordance with F.H.A. plans., Lot coverage is 22.5 units per acre, although it is less than that since we are giving up 4 units. The plan involves driveways in the rear of the units, keeping auto circulation going to the units away from the play court areas. We have provided laundry yards of 20 lineal feet for each apartment, with one laundry set-up for each_10 apartments and compartments for storage of children°s tricycles, etc. Along with the project is a recreation area to the left which is through front courts to that area. This will contain swimming pool, outdoor barbecue area, etc. The reason we did not develop it completely is that the F.H.A. wants to feel its way along with idea for land facilities. We have listened to the reading of the report of the Planning.Depart- ment and there is only one or two things we would like to review. That parking be 1-1/2 to 1 rather than 1-3/4 to 1 is fine. The 101 parkways and 401 paving along internal street is fine but re- the 501 property line radius on the cul-de-sac we would rather have that 621 rather than the 501, for additional guest parking. There is the elimination of parking on the periphery of the cul-de-sac, this we would like to keep. We want to get as many cars for guest parking on the property as possible and have increased depth of guest park ing. We have increased the bay to 231 so that cars can see the traffic*hen they back out. The conformance with R-3B specifications except parking, we will comply with. Co Co 9-22-58 Page Nineteen Z.G. NOo 1,28 and Po P, NO.136 - continued Mr, Stern - continued. Basically, the only thing not complied with is dedication of the cul-de-sac in these final plans. We will go along with the dedica- tion but not dedicating it if your body so requests. The alley was never to be dedicated and it is only the cul-de-sac we are request- ing -dedication for. The frontage road will be dedicated, and we would like to do that and if there is'some problem we would withhold dedication of it and develop it as a private street in strict accordance with City require- ments for road improvement. Mrs,Johnson of 4136 No Ya,leton stated that this never should have been "M91 zoning and 85% of the people signed against it and are still, against it, This use of R.-3 zoning would be more in keeping with the area. Question from the floor was asked in relation to drainage of carports. Mr. Stern stated there was no problem involved at this moment as the surveyors indicated that drainage would be down to San Bernardino Road; that the cul-de-sac would drain in that direction and drainage of carports would go onto San Bernardino Road through the property and on down through the alleys. It was further indicated there is a 121 emergency gateway for fire equipment access and they will keep that clear for fire trucks over Pacific R.O.W. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Pittenger. Development of this recreation area is a part of this whole plan. Mention was made of the F.H.A. feeling its.way along on this. We wanted it developed when it is built. Mr. Gerschler. Building Department could not issue building permit until plan has been approved and development of recreation area was integral part of the whole area, Councilman Barnes. How far back is the property line from the railroad property? Mr; Gerschler. It actually joins railroad property, but is 1501 from the tracks. Mayor Mottinger. Is one opening sufficient so far as Fire Department use? OV Mr. Gerschler. They felt this would be adequate for emergency. Co C. 9-22-58 Page Twenty Z,C,NOo128 and P,P,NO.136 - continued Councilman Heath: I would like to see one more if it fit in readily. Perhaps one at the other end, Mr. Gerschler: It could be changed so there could be two 121 gateways for vehicular access and two 61 gateways for pedestrian access, Councilman Brown: Item 17 indicates modifications sug- gested by the Fire Department, Mr, Gerschler: Those are very slight. It is the elimina- tion of 4 parking places recommended by the Fire Department to accommodate turn- ing problem. Councilman Brown: If the City doesn't accept the cul-de-sac street are we interested in the way the sidewalk is set up to the street? Then items ?, 8, 9 and 10 are practically out. Mr, Gerschler: We are concerned with street width if parking is provided on both sides of the street. Item 8 is private street and so we are not particularly interested in that. If we feel it is of impor- tance to them we have no objection. Item 9 has increased depth of bays for periphery parking, Mayor Mottinger: Council concurred with suggestions and whether we accept dedication on this street or not is being raised. A motion was made by Councilman. Brown, with a second by Councilman Heath that the zone change be approved and the precise plan be approved leaving out Item 6 as passed by the Planning Commission, However, no question was asked on the motion and -Mr. Williams indicated that it was only necessary to act on the.zone change as the precise plan was given conditional approval by the Planning Commission contingent on the action regarding the zone.change by Council. The motion was then made as follows: Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried that Zone Change No, 128 be approved, C. C. 9-22-58 ZONE CHANGE NO. 129 City Initiated (Glahn Property) APPROVED Page Twenty -One LOCATION: Northwest side of Sunset Avenue, between Merced and Cameron Avenues. Recommended for approval of reclassification from Zone R-A, to P-B Zone (Public Build- ings) by Planning Commission Resolution No. 643. Mayor Mottinger opened the public hearing and stated that all those desiring to present testimony should 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 Heath and carried that Zone Change No. 129 be approved. Mayor Mottinger authorized to by-pass two remaining public hearings that were City initiated and take up other matters on the Agenda in defer- ence to people in the audience waiting to be heard. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION ANNEXATION NO. 157 LOCATION° Northeast corner of Francisquito and California Avenues. On June 23, 1958 the City Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for report. Held over by the Planning Commission from their meeting of August 6,1958. Recommended for approval of.northeast corner of Francisquito and Glendora only by Planning Commission on August 20, 1958, with same zoning as Los Angeles County. August 25, 1958 - tabled by City Council for further study. Mayor Mottinger. The dispute with LaPuente on Annexation. No. 157 is a matter that has been under consideration for quite some time. There was a court hearing on the matter and the judgment at this time has been in favor of the City of LaPuente. Some time ago our City Council and the City Council of LaPuente sat down together to determine what would be the most equitable way to solve this matter and the consensus of opinion at that meeting,although it was nothing official, was that there should be a residential buffer zone between the commercial zoning which the property owners desired in -the area of Francisquito and Glendora and so that the residents in West Covina to the north of this annexation and the Jewell Homes to the west would have buffer zoning. There has been considerable discussion on this matter. The Council in- structed me to talk with the Mayor of LaPuente to get this thing under way, and I have had discussions with the property owners and attorneys who have represented the City against the annexation of LaPuente. Co Co 9-22-58 Page Twenty -Two ANNEXATION NO. 157 - continued Mayor Mottinger - continued: I think, at this time, it should be made a matter of record that we are in receipt of a copy of Resolution No. 334, passed by the'City Council of the City of LaPuente on September 16, 1.958, which substan- tially agrees to the understanding which was reached in the informal sessions which the two Councils had. They are now providing a residen- tial buffer around the commercial area so as to protect homes to the west and north. I believe that Mr. Williams and attorneys representing this case may have additional information that should come before us at this time. Mr. Watson was the attorney in this case but was unable to be here this evening because of other committmentso Mr. Robert Go Beverly, attorney, stated that he was here to speak on this matter in the absence of Mr. Watson, and was from the law firm of Richards, Watson, Smith and VanPetten. Very briefly I would point out the position of the land owners we have represented in this matter. They do not approve of the compromise settlement that has been discussed. We are in favor of a buffer zone • insofar as R-1 on the north side of property but not in agreement with R-3 buffer on the west. We have been in litigation on this because they did not want commer- cial, or other undesirable influences, in a fine residential develop- ment. The Jewell and Cinderella tracts do not feel that R-3 is any more desirable than commercial development. A proper single family buffer would meet with approval, but R-3 is just As much interference, perhaps more so. Commercial might be planned so that parking lots with walls could be put in whereas R-3 would be intereference of traffic, roads would be necessary and this is not generally compatible,with the development here. I would point out that litigation is far from over as it is a tentative decision in favor of LaPuente against West Covina but findings have not been prepared, judgment not entered and we do not consider the case lost. In looking down the barrel of a tentative decision we admit we are up against something that is not as good a position as when the appeal was started. We are in the position of going up hill, but this isn't over, and there is still room for more desirable compromise if nothing else. I talked to Mro Watson and he talked to one of the owners in the area who desires commercial in the LaPuente annexation and'a tentative meet- ing is set for this Thursday. We are desirous you take no action to drop this litigation or to terminate it. We appreciate your problem and are not interested in continuing to drag out this litigation but we feel that no action at this time would best serve those who desire to come in to West Covina and we request this not be terminated. • • Co Co 9-22-58 ANNEXATION NO, 157 - continued Page Twenty -Three Mr. E. Oo Oxley I am general chairman of the Jewell- 15403 E. Alwood Cinderella Fund. We in these homes authorized the City Council to fight this action at the time this problem came before the City of LaPuente. The only interest is a real sincere interest on the part of the home owners to protect the integrity of the area and that is still their purpose. To that extent we went to some trouble to fight this in court and we asked help from the City to help us in this action. We felt that if we had a good cause for legal action the City would give us better protection in zoning this property. We do not fool. ourselves that property to the north of Francisquito might not be used for commer- cial purpose, but what we see is south on Glendora as classic strip zoning and what has been offered is not better than the cause used for initial litigation. I assume that the so-called compromise under consideration was one of the two plans those property owners did offer, which I saw, and which was the subject of the meeting for home owners in that area. Those plans roughly proposed R-1 next to the Jewell tract, which we do not consider desirous, and R-3 next to the Cinderella tract, The R-3 is no more appealing to those people, These Cinderella homes would back up to this R-3 and if it was a two-story apartment it would expose the backs of these homes to those upstairs in these apartments. There is no more appeal than commercial with R-3 establishments back there. We were never approached when plans were being drawn to see what our feelings were So far as the Jewell tract, with the proposal of buffered R-1, we are not happy with that, as they propose to open streets in an area where such a proposal is unreasonable and unnecessary. We would like to meet with the property owners and the City of LaPuente and go over some of our own ideas as to what is acceptable buffering. We used your City°s name and our money and we still have to use your name in the terms of any further legal action. When we took this legal action we felt that At least we would have the right to see the findings in this case to see if there was further reason for more legal action. Agreement and.compromise should come when we get find- ings of the case and wait to give up the appeal based on those find- ings and the findings have to have some legal tack in its A Resolution is something not binding from one meeting to the next and if we forego the legal right to appeal this case we have to have something to give us protection,. I do not say we are being sold out `taut at least see us through until we get findings in this case and at that time there is the place for proper compromise, but we are not at that stage yet. I speak for a fairly large group of people. There are 35 out of 36 homes in the Jewell tract interested in this and in the Cinderella tract I would estimate about 60 homes. 4, 41b C. Co 9-22-58 Page Twenty -Four ANNEXATION NO. 157 - continued Mrs Ea Oo Oxley - continued: We look to you present, to protect the last vestige of legal rights we have left and I think that you have a duty to those in the Cinderella Homes who are already in the City of West Covina to give them some pro- tection. If things go as they stand now they would get H-3 zoning which does not appeal to them. We would get H-1 but with the proposal to open up streets which would become a loophole to.avoid traffic congestion at Glendora and Francisquitoo We beieve they have no basic right to open the street and the way the street is laid out the County still has control of that street. We have some protection in that regard, if we do not get it from you, to carry the case to the County so far as keeping the streets closed. We urge you present to see us through to the findings and then is the appropriate time to decide whether we want to give up anything as to further action and form a compromise in the cases We appeared enmass-- at the LaPuente Council and pleaded with Council for some consideration and the only question that was asked was whether we were residents of the City or not and that is indicative of the feelings of that City and we have nothing further to go on.but the feelings presented at the time by that City. We ask you to wait to see findings, to see if any further legal cause can be honored and if not, at that point arrange a compromise. Councilman Pittenger. This resolution has not been accepted by US. Our request was that they get deed restrictions and this, in my opinion, does not answer what we asked for. Councils can change and the resolu- tion be rescinded by any Council. However, we acted in real good faith to get a buffer zone for you as we would ask for in our own City. Mr, Oxley. does not act on this nothing Councilman Pittenger. I believe that is true, although somewhere we lost contact and we are not happy with the zoning. However, if Council is lost. Possibly we can get people and see what know if we can sell we can try. together with you you want. I do not what you want, but Mr, Oxley. We do not believe that our demands are unreasonable. We want to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. We feel we have a good cause. It is a very substantial area and investment to use We checked with the County and they denied commercial on that area before. We know it isn't always going to be that way, but we have no recourse because it is in another city°s hand with no power,of appeal and when we did, it fell on deaf ears. We wouldn't like to see our- selves shortchanged at this stage of the game, C. Co 9-22-58 Page Twenty -Five Jr ANNEXATION NO. 157 - continued Mr, Co Hanson I live in West Covina and my property 844 W. Lucille St. abutts directly on this open field West Covina where proposed commercial is going. I am chairman of the finance committee of this fund group which was formed over a year ago. I feel we should at least wait with any kind of decision to get the reason we lost the decision in court. As it sits now we have no idea why we lost it, only that some judge ruled against use We spent a great deAl of money on this thing and do not know how this decision was reached, nor why it was made. Most of the people directly:abutting on to this property would be willing to compromise with anything reasonable such as backing R-1 on same size lots or better against us and then have a good, approved size street in front of that and R-3 facing street on the opposite side. That way they can pretty well do what they want with the re- mainder of the property. On the Cinderella and Jewell tracts R-1 should follow the West Covina City Limits around and the street kept closed, at least for the children°s protection. If it was not done it would become a service road for the commercial, area if it was opened up. I think you can understand why we want the streets kept closed, " I do not think that what we ask is too unreasonable in view of the large amount of ground they have use for there, Mr. W. Ferguson The resolution that our City passed City Attorney for the states that the Clay of LaPuente is cog - City of LaPuente nizant of a residential buffer zone be- tween the commercial property and the Cinderella and Jewell tracts, The plans submitted by Mr. Moore and Mr. Caggliarro was submitted as a result of the conference between the two Councils. This is what we understood you would like, and we met with Mr. Moore and Mr. Caggliarro on it. The resolution doesn't state R-1, R-2 or anything. It states residential. We thought R-1. and R-3 was what you wanted. I think it is certain 'that LaPuente .is entitled to a piece of property to come into that City when 100% of the property owners want to come in; or is it more right to find the City of West Covina overlapping the annexation and taking in two large property owners who do not want to come into that City. The decision was that LaPuente had prior jurisdiction and had proceeded correctly with annexation laws. In zoning you protect the property owners' interests and protect adjoining property owners. We feel there is no more need for delay in these matters and that it can be worked out satisfactorily to all if the City of LaPuente is honorable, and if not honorable you can do what you feel like about it. I feel the City is entitled to annex this piece of property and that all you have to do is to instruct Mr. Williams and Mr. Watson to drop all the matters concerned with this annexation regarding LaPuente and let the property owners come in. Co Co 9-22-58 Page Twenty -Six ANNEXATION NO. 157 - continued Mr, Ferguson - continued: We will sit down and discuss this further after that. We have R-3 because you mold us R-3. Mr. Beverly. In this hearing tonight it has shown one thing. We are trying to compromise and settle this to the best interests of all but that contact was lost and the wishes of the property owners involved outside of this annexation area were not known specifically. I think we should try to nail down what might be indicated as a. compromise plan, Mr. Oxley. If it is the intention of the property owners to go ahead with buffer residen- tial zoning then maybe we should droop the whole thing and go ahead and let it ride its legal course. I still urge, with the investment we have in it, to let us see the findings on which the case was decided. If the intention is to go ahead and give us the residential buffering -zone, they should go ahead with their intentions to give us that, but I urge you not to drop legal actions Mayor Mottingero I have one additional bit of information '� that I.think is worthy of comment and that is that LaPuente asked us to come to a conclusion at our last regular meeting and I told their Mayor at that time that I did not think it was possible for us to come to an agreement that fast but assured him we would take action this evenings In the meantime every effort was made to contact the property owners involved in the LaPuente annexation, both by the attorneys and through 'the offices of the two Mayors, but nothing was accomplished. My own observation on this matter is that we might be gambling with a longshot if an appeal were made to the decision of the court because certainly if an appeal was made in this matter and that kept it bound up, we could not hold the City of LaPuente to any agreement made at which time we might lose everything gained by this resolution. I wish there were some common ground we could get together on, but that is up to the property owners and if they do not see it that way they could hold out from now on and there is nothing the City could enforce on the property owners. There was an attempt in the direction of deed restrictions but to date the property owners feel they could not, in the interests of them- selves, sign away rights to their property and be getting nothing in return, Councilman Brown.- I can see property owners not wanting to give deed restrictions but I thought ' there would be some study to protect these other property owners, but R-3 doesn't do it nor does traffic through residential streets do it. S • Co Co 9-22-58 ANNEXATION NO. 157 - continued Page Twenty -Seven Councilman Heath: LaPuente has been very cooperative on this and have tried to work with us on it. Unless there is some specific reason for wanting to close this development of property immediately perhaps they could give us a little more time. Mr. Ferguson: There is immediate urgency and necessity in that there is an automobile agency going in, and two more weeks might make a difference. It seems they do not want to see this leave the City of Industry and go into LaPuente. There is an immediate urgency and if you do not pass this tonight the only recourse is to go to the court and,proceed along the final course. We have to sit down for 16 hours with the Judge in relation to the findings and it would be simpler to do that then come back in two weeks, Councilman Heath: You think you would get faster final settlement going that way? Mr. Ferguson: Time has run out. I do not know what your decision would be but I do know what the Judge's would be. You wanted resi- dential between commercial zoning and houses and that is what we put in because that was what you wanted and if it is not what was wanted we can come back and we will work it out but not because we are being forced to do it, Councilman Barnes: I do think that in all fairness to the property owners that LaPuente would give residential buffering. Mr, Ferguson: The thing has never been presented to the City and all you have to do is designate what you desire and I am sure we will carry, it out. Mr, Oxley: I would challenge that statement in that the City officials felt it was not incumbent to have a meeting with the property owners. Mr. Williams: If Council adopts the resolution direct- ing waiving of findings and release of restraining order, it could be directed that it be withheld until this difficulty with R-3 instead of R-1 could be worked out. That seems to be the main difference, S 0 ft Co Co 9-22-58 ANNEXATION NO. 157 - continued Page Twenty -Eight Mr, Ferguson-, Insofar as LaPuente is concerned, we were desirous to get something done because we could see this automobile agency coming in or not. We are beyond that time'now so would rather take our chances in forgetting about any discussion and go into court and present our case to a Judge on every single issue„ whether annexation or zoning, because we will. get an ultimate decision, and so far all we have been doing is getting nothing and the City of LaPuente thinks that someone is pulling strings. Mayor Mottinger-, That is where you are wrong. We are trying to protect those in the City and those that might be in the City, I heard this statement and hoped it would not come up but since it did, here and now I denounce this idea, Any reference that we tied up with the City of Industry or to keep LaPuente from what it is their desire to do is entirely wrong, rumors notwithstanding„ We may have been somewhat in error in not going after this thing after we had our joint meeting but the matter of urgency did not come up. Maybe it should have but that was a joint responsibility and there was no such talk of an agency. It wasn't until I talked to your Mayor that I understood you were really being pushed and then I stated I would get on this thing right away and we started working. I have talked with the Mayor and the City Manager, particularly the Mayor, the last several weeks try- ing to get this thing solved. We hadn't got to the point we would have liked but it was put on the Agenda and he was assured we would take action this evening. We want to settle this as fairly as possible, believe me. I think it would be in everyone's bad interest, not good interest, to tie this up for a year and we believe that another two weeks would be better. The City Attorney stated that he would add an amendment to the reso- lution in relation to buffering this commercial zone with H-1 lots of like size on the entire perimeter of the Jewell and Cinderella tracts, and with it being contingent on that, Council could adopt the Resolution. Mr, Aiassa-, Mr,.Gerschler can work on this thing and we can have a spokesman from this pro- perty.owners group be in on this and have the City Manager from LaPuente also and all of us, with Mr. Williams, perhaps can get this thing worked out.. Mr, Beverly indicated that he represented the property owners with the aim of preserving the integrity of the property owners and their property and this was not connected with the City of Industry in any way nor was there knowledge of this automobile agency being forestalled as indicated this evening. Mr. Hanson stated that there was no connection with this group of property owners with the City of Industry nor had one bit of money been exacted from anyone other than the property owners involved, with full accounting of funds received available.. ' Co Ca 9--22-58 1 Page Twenty -Nine ANNEXATION NO, 157 - continued Mr. Ferguson indicated that the City of LaPuente would not become a part of any deed restrictions under any conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 1444 (as amended) Instructing the City°s Attorneys. ADOPTED The City Attorney presented and read the Resolution, with amendment "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA INSTRUCING THE CITY°S ATTORNEYS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF OXLEY, ET ALo.V, CITY OF LA PUENTE, ET AL., AND MOORE, ET AL., V. CITY OF WEST COVINA, ET AL. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Heath that said Resolution, as amended, be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows° Ayes,. Councilmen Heath, Brown, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes,. None Absent,. None • ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA SOUTH HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH SCHOOL Mr. So Tracht I have listened to a great deal of dis- �14 No Irwinda,le,West Covina cussion on the subject by the group of which -I am a member. I am not in a position to form my awn opinion as to the merits pro and con that confronts those concerned but I feel it is a matter that involves something of far more significance to me and Council, as members of a governing body, than technicalities or legalities, and that is the operation of. a project which I sincerely feel will add to the quality.of the community. I have no investment in this project, am only a member of the church a short time and have no children involved. Principally this is a church.for people to worship at a place who believe as we do and in conjunction with that it is our mission to help to educate children along the way we wish to believe. Mr. Bruce 1�vrns I have spent many hours on this but I 2412 E. Walnut Creek Pkwyo did not come to debate the case, We West Covina admit that.we, as parents, made costly errors in not investigating what has been and what should have been done in the school structure. Our only reason in taking time is to ask that you weigh the advantages of this project to your community, C. C. 9-22-58 Page Thirty SOUTH HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH SCHOOL, - continued Mr, Burns - continued. We are developing property there which was an eyesore and developing it by the process of the highest type of architecture and it should be a beautiful spot when we are finished with it. We are, as parents, assisting a church in every way possible to make it a beautiful site. We are developing future citizens to the best of our ability to make them better citizens and contributing to the general quality and character of our community. Those are very good objectives but more important this school is fostering happiness and well-being among hundreds of our children in West Covina. You know that in the matter of zoning there are objections as a matter of principle, justified or not, and that most variances have objec- tions from the people in the surrounding area. However, there will be no harm to the people who have objected to our school there and as you know our public schools are sprinkled around in our City among the best residential areas in the City and we felt this use would not create much commotion to neighbors on the north. In fact, it is almost isolated so far as the residential area is concerned and this will make it more so with all cooperating. • We feel and hope that where there is a will there is a way and the possibility that something may be done in our behalf as we feel the project is good for the community and welfare of our children and we appeal to you if something can be done because the way the situation is now we have moved out of our school into locations not good for children or parents. Church people are all directly behind us. We feel at this point that if it carries on, the balance of this week in -this type of trying to keep school, this project to beautify our City, improve the welfare of our community, will end up disastrous. I appeal to Council in our predicament and admit that we made some grave errors. Mayor Mottingero I appreciate the comments, there is no doubt about it, and that is the reason I took the liberty to attend the Board of Trustees' meeting you had Tuesday night. An invitation was extended to Council, which was not received, but I took the liberty, as an indi- vidual not as a Councilman, to explain this matter and went over the same matter of trying to figure any possible solution to your dilemma. I do not know of any common ground on which this problem can be solved and again ask the City Attorney if he has any knowledge of some solution other than repeatedly stated of following due processes of law. C.C. 9-22-58 Page Thirty -One SOUTH HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH SCHOOL continued Mr. Williams-, I do not have any suggestion because I do not know of anything that can be done that would give security to the use of this property for a day school purpose until the variance is heard. In the inception it was my reaction to do something extra legal, which is commonly donee and that is you do not file complaint against every violation the moment it occurs and if it is seen that efforts are being made to alleviate the problem, withhold action temporarily. That can be the attitude of the City since there is an effort to comply but this does not prohibit anyone else from upholding this law and there is nothing that Council can do to keep citizens from filing com- plaints. The City has taken another approach and that is to see whether some other location can be found until the hearing occurs. There is going to be a hearing before the Planning Commission but I doubt if this will be final because whatever. occurs there will be an appeal, to City Council which will be another three weeks, and this is assuming the Commission will give a decision the night they receive this application. It would seem to me that final decision is a good six weeks off at the very minimums Let us assume in this six weeks the.City did not file anything against you, it Mill remains a problem in that someone else might,, the law is still on the book and any person can_file a complaint, The other thing is this - the decision may be adverse. If it is adverse in November what do you do with 176 pupils? The only answer is to wait until next semester. Let them go until you get the answer. If you get another location finish the semester at that location, Mr, Tracht-, I am fully aware of the problem and any sole purpose in coming was to stress to you and call to your attention that we have a project of great merit and great good to the community. Instead of banging heads and trying to accomplish the impossible we ask you to perpetuate the project and let it go ahead. Mayor Mottinger- We have tried to cooperate as much as possible but Ican°t as an individual or as a Councilman commit Council, as to any future action and I refuse committments as to my opinion. I think it will have to stand on its own merit, In case other citizens com- plained and.we turned our back on the ordinance we would be clearly liable for not enforcing the ordinance, Councilman Heath-, I think this incidex.,` is very unfortun- ate. Has anyone contacted the people who have made the complaint to see if they would be considerate enough to waive the complaint for a period of time, say six months, and if no one complainsp that school can operate for six months, possibly going so far as to give a variance for six • Co Co 9-22-58 Page Thirty -Two SOUTH HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH SCHOOL - continued Councilman Heath - continued: months. I think this is an asset, definitely, and a service to the community. We know it is violating the law but if the people were contacted they might be tolerant enough to go along on a temporary basis and see if they couldn't go along until these people get out of the woods. Mr. Burns: I understand that some only filed a com- plaint because a neighbor asked them to. We need time to spendin those facilities until we get your decision then we will abide by your decision at that point. We will try to pay our teachers, we have an obligation to them, Mr. Williams: A complaint is in the nature of a request to the City to take action. If the City does not take action any one of these persons may go to court himself and file complaint. If no one files action to enforce the law, you may peacefully violate it but you cannot not enforce the law. .Councilman Pittenger: If we do this then every church in this community deserves to have a day school and in many cases we haven't got room for a day school. I voted for the church and would not have voted for a school. There is a traffic problem and we can't deny that, although not necessarily on Sundays. If that can be solved that is good. We can't turn our backs on our ordinance and then not turn our backs on any ordinance in the community. If we turn our backs what can the City enforce? Councilman Heath. There are times it is worthy to deviate just a little when somebody finds them- selves in a predicament such as these people have. We are not wilfully or purposely violating the law. Councilman Pittenger: You turn your back and you are violating the law. Councilman Heath: What is the objection to a school. that is doing service to the community. The only thing I heard is traffic problem and that can be alleviated by a traffic guard. Councilman Barnes: I think we did the only thing we could do when we had a formal complaint. Mayor Mottinger: I hate to see people pushed into a. corner. I am in favor of schools, public schools that is. FA • • Co Co 9-22-58 Page Thirty -Three SOUTH HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH SCHOOL - continued Councilman Brown-. I am in favor of schools too, but the sprouting up over night of a school where one was not supposed to be I am not in favor of it. Mayor Mottinger-. I believe it is a fair statement in answer to these people that as long as there is a complaint before us demanding we enforce the ordinance the only thing we can do is enforce it, other- wise there is no action for the Council to take. Mr. Williams-. That is true. As to whether you would be criminally liable if you did not do it I would doubt that, but you would be derelict in your duty when you do not enforce the law of the City, when seven complaints have been filed, PROCLAMATION COMMENDING The City Clerk presented and read this THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL Proclamation. GUARD RESERVES ADOPTED Harold M. Matherson, Lt o Col. C, N, Go R, -. I think you know in the event of war or a serious emergency the Army and Army National Guard is gone, committed to combat, and they are not available for regular duty and that is the reason for this organization. We have worked with Civil Defense and other necessary organizations. We are classed as infantry but with strong military police background and training for traffic control, guard duty, crowd control and other such civil defense matters in performance of our duty. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown that the Proclamation commending the United States National Guard Reserves, as read by the City Clerk, be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows-. Ayes-. Councilmen Heath, Brown, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes-. None Absent-. None SCHOOL CROSSING PIONEER SCHOOL Mr. R. Theophilus We have a situation in relation to school 1403 E. Shamwood children attending Pioneer School, We represent only a few of the parents involved in this. t LJ • C. C. 9-22-58 Page Thirty -Four SCHOOL CROSSING, PIONEER SCHOOL - continued Mr, Theophilus - continued: We live in an area bounded by Workman on the north, Lark Ellen on the west, Azusa on the east and the Freeway on the south. This area has 200 small children attending the Pioneer School on Rowland and the same number of children in an area to the north bounded by Rowland, with Lark Ellen and Azusa east and west bound. Our concern is for small children going to and from school. We approached the School Board of Covina School District for bus ser- vices, but it was indicated they are presently bound by the 3/4 mile limit for such service. Some homes in the area are on the boundary line, out of the 3/4 mile limit, but you still have the other 200 children, plus, walking to and from school. Homerest Avenue is the'only through street between Lark Ellen and Azusa Avenue and we won't permit walking on Lark Ellen or Azusa because of the traffic. There are dangers to children crossing Workman Avenue in particular and Rowland Avenue, although at Rowland there is a crossing guard now, but no stop sign. We feel there is quite a stretch between Lark Ellen and Azusa. Avenue for traffic to get up enough speed before they get to the crosswalk and we feel there will be heavier traffic on Workman when the improve- ment on Azusa Avenue is complete and traffic signals are installed. Workman leads directly into the Eastland Shopping area which will be a collector street bringing traffic in off the Freeway. I would point out that there are not sidewalks on Homerest Avenue where the children walk. There is also a problem in the winter with water and drainage. The corner of Lark Ellen and Shamwood had so much water it forced children to walk almost out in the center of the streets. We feel there should be crossing guards put in at Workman and Homerest intersection, boulevard stop signs at intersection of Homerest and Workman and Rowland and Workman to slow traffic down between two main boulevards between Lark Ellen and Azusa Avenues, In addition, there are children living in the area that attend Traweek School, and many of those walk up Homerest Avenue adding to the foot traffic across Workman Avenue, We even asked the older children to watch and wait for the younger children coming home, Co Co 9-22-58 Page Thirty -Five SCHOOL.CROSSING, PIONEER SCHOOL ® continued Mrs. Howard I have a. seven yeard old who is dismissed 1638 Shamwood at 2:10 Po M. and a youngster in kinder- garten who is dismissed at 2:40 P. Ma and the older children wait until 2:40 for the younger ones to come home with them. We received a letter from the school principal that those children staying after 2:10 to 2:40 Po M. are creating a problem of disturbance to kindergarten and upper grade children and it was suggested that arrangements be made for them to leave the school grounds at 2:10 Po M,,so now my second grader can't see that my younger child is safely brought home. Mayor Mottinger: I appreciate the problem you are con- fronted with. There is only part of it that we would have any jurisdiction over in that we can ask the City Manager and the Police Department to survey this situation and come up with recommendations, We cant act on it here, Mrs. Howard: There was a request made of the School Board for a survey but there has been nothing from the Covina School Board on the matter. The Police Department conducted a survey as so many • people mentioned the problem. Mr, Aiassa: We are right in the middle of this and are checking out stop signs. The schools are trying to cooperate with use We will have to investigate this further and try to meet with this group, Mrs. Van Dame: You were on the School Board, Mr. Mottingere isn't it mandatory to furnish busses for small children. Mayor Mottinger: No, as I believe the school gets support from the State when they carry children a certain distance, but when not within that distance they get no support from the State. Mrs. Howard: There.is a 3/4 mile .limit but if there is a --hazard the State will reimburse these communities and will bus younger children, The Covina School District stated the 3/4 mile limit with no exception, but there are so many children involved, Councilman Brown: Do we have temporary portable signals we might use. Mr. Aiassa: I feel if this warrants stop signs that 4% would be the answer. Another thing is that we can put in school crossing signs which does have some effect and we can erect those immediately. 'We .could stencil the street although not in some areas because part of 9 C. C. 9-22-58 SCHOOL CROSSING, PIONEER SCHOOL - continued Mr. Aiassa - continued: Page Thirty -Six it (street) is being torn up. We will give full cooperation as far as we can go on it and as quickly .as possible. AGENDA CONTINUATION Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried that City Initiated Amendments No. 24 and No. 25 be continued until next Monday evening, September 29th, at 7:30 P. M. CITY ATTORNEY INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented Ordinance rezoning "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE certain property CITY OF WEST COVINA REZONING CERTAIN (Zone Change No. 128) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, BETWEEN IRWINDALE AVENUE AND AZUSA CANYON ROAD." (Moritz Pick) Mayor Mottinger: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried that the Ordinance be introduced. ORDINANCE NO. 589 The City Attorney presented: Rescinding Ordinance "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE No. 444 CITY OF WEST COVINA REPEALING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NO. 444 RELATING TO THE POSITION OF - ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER." (Second Reading). Mayor Mottinger: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the --- Resolution. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Heath that said Ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilman Heath, Brown, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Nees: None Absent: None Said Ordinance was given No. 589. • Co Co 9-22-58 Page Thirty -Seven INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: Ordinance rezoning "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE certain property CITY OF WEST COVINA REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE,OF GARVEY AVENUE BETWEEN AZUSA AND HOLLEN- BECK AVENUES" (City Initiated) . Mayor Mottinger: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried that the Ordinance be introduced, INTRODUCTION Ordinance creating and establishing Capital Outlay Fund Mayor Mottinger: The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEST COVINA CREATING AND ESTABLISHING CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND," Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the Ordinanceo Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried that the Ordinance be introduced, CITY MANAGER ADDITION TO COMIDA PARK SITE adjoining property, Mr. Van to dispose of the property $6,900.00 and $5,250.00. We approached the property owners in relation to the sale of property adjoin- ing the Comida Park site. We received committments from two of the owners of Syckle and Mr. MacMahon,who are willing for the amount submitted to them, namely Mr. Van Syckle has a pile of wood which is a problem to be worked out with the City staff as to its relocation, but we do gain a chain link fence, which will also have to be relocated. An estimate for moving the fence is in the bid, but not for moving the wood pile; that will have to be negotiated. Mr. McCall did not accept our offer of $14,000.00 and his counter- offer was $I.5, 500.00. I would like to recommend that tiffs offer be tabled for the presents I would like to proceed on the acquisition of the two parcels owned by McMahon and VanSyckleo. We will have a title search and land surveyed; then proceed with opening and closing Escrow. This.will relieve the City of the responsibility of improv- ing 50% of the proposdd new-ttreet, Motion by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried that the City Manager carry through the procedure iri securing and purchasing the two pieces of property indicated for.(addition to) Park site. 9 C. C.. 9-22-58 Page Thirty -Eight JAIL FACILITIES The City of Arcadia has offered us their FROM ARCADIA old jail equipment for free. It will APPROVED be the responsibility of the City of West Covina to remove same from their present facilities. The City of Arcadia would like to have this equipment removed as soon as possible. We found this could be done by a contractor for $890.00, Frye And Frye,.and if done by City forces cost would be about $653.20. There would -probably be a savings of about $200.00 if the City did its Either party could accomplish the job. Councilman Brown: I doubt if the City could do it any cheaper than the contractor if actual accounts were kept of cost and equipment. Mr. Aiassa: Anything salvageable could be used in the City Yard. Frye and Frye would do this work for $890.00, the next bid was in the amount of $1,500.00. It would save the City a lot of time if an outside bidder did its • Motion,by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Brown that the City Manager be authorized to spend the amount of $890.00 to have outside contractor, Frye and Frye, do the work of removal of all steel, bunk beds, windows screens, metal partitions, and all plumbing fixtures and fittings, and deliver same to the City Yard, 827 Sunset Boulevard, West Covina, California, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes,: Councilmen Heath, Brown, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes: None Absent: None Mr. Flotten stated that October 12th was a holiday which would be celebrated the next day, Monday, October 13th, with City offices closed. This was also the regular meeting date for the Council and it has been the practice to move the meeting date to the following days It was consensus this be done and the meeting date of Council would be set for Tuesday, October 14, 1958. 4% C. Co 9-22-58 Page Thirty -Nine DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Pittenger that Demands in the amount of $135,467.95, as shown on Demand Sheets C-107, C-108, C-105 and C-106 be approved, this to include fund transfers in the amount of $59,011.82. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes. Councilmen Heath, Brown, Pittenger, Barnes, Mayor Mottinger Noes. None Absent. None 4 The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P. M. until Monday, September._ 1958 at 7.30 Po M., at which time the remainder of the September 22nd Agenda was to be finished, including the City Initiated Amendments Noo 24 and No. 25 as indicated by motion. Study session to follow. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL / 11�'�/ti Q� /7. Date 1, As submitted 20 With the following corrections. pla