Loading...
10-26-1959 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA October 26, 1959 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brown 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. Don Locher of the West Covina Methodist Church. RAT.A. O AT.8_ Present: Mayor Brown, Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes Others Present.- Mr, George Aiassa, City Manager Mr. Robert-Flotten, City Clerk Mr. Harry. C. Williams, City Attorney Mr. Tom Dosh, Public Service Director • APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 13, 1959 - Approved as submitted. DECISION.WITH RESPECT TO LOCATION: 325-333 N. Citrus Avenue REQUEST OF MRS. ELEANOR SAMUELS FOR TWO FOOT Re: Amendment to Precise Plan No. 17 SETBACK ON CITRUS AVENUE MINUTES CORRECT AS City Clerk Flotten: Council will recall SUBMITTED (MAY 27,1957) that a written communication from Mrs. Eleanor Samuels was introduced at the last Council meeting,- the matter was discussed informally and decision was postponed until this meeting pending a review of the past history of this matter as it happened in May, 1957. , Mayor Brown: I think there was also studies to be made on the property adjacent to this. City Clerk Flotten: A report was developed at the instruction of the City Manager by Mr. Stanford, Special Services Officer, dated October 21, 1959, regarding General Tire Store. The report was read by the City Clerk as follows: • 0 Co Co 1.0-26-59 Page Two "As per your request the following is information on the property located on the West side of Citrus, North of Workman Avenue: "On the original adopted Precise Plan No. 17 regarding this property, the set -back requirements on buildings were 90 feet, On April 11, 1957, a revised Precise Plan was submitted to the Planning Department and application made by Eleanor Bo Green, requesting an amendment to adopted Precise Plan Noo.17. On this revised plan submitted, the proposed Good Year Service Store, located at 315 N, Citrus, and the proposed retail store,. located at 333 No Citrus, showed a set -back of 2 feet. Public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May lst, 1957. (The following is the Planning Department's remarks): l) Subject property is presently classified C-2 and is part of the property regulated by adopted Precise Plan No. 17, 2) As may be observed in reviewing adopted Precise Plan No. 17, this proposal is designed to simply consolidate those small shops shown.on that plan in the same approxi- mate location, with the exception of the reduced build- ing set -back along,Citrus Avenue. 3) Apparently no substantial change in land use is antici- pated in this plan. Provided that proper set -backs are shown along Citrus Avenue, it would appear that this plan conforms to the original intent of Precise Plan No. 17, and will meet the standards of the City of West Covina. 4) It is the recommendation -of the Planning Department that Amended Precise Pian No, 17 be approved subject to the condition that a minimum building set -back of 20' be shown along Citrus: Avenue, with this area.being properly landscaped to insure compatibility with properties in the vicinity to the south and southeast, and subject to all conditions of adopted Precise Plan No. 17. "A motion by Commissioner Jackson, seconded by Commissioner McNutt, and carried that amendment to adopted Precise Plan No. 17 be recommended for approval subject to the recommendations of the Planning Department. (See Planing Commission Resolution No., 498) "On May 27, 1957, public hearing on this matter was held'by the Nest Covina City Council.. Minutes of this meeting show a motion was made by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried that amendment to adopted Precise Plan No. 17 be approved with a set -back of 8 feet from the property line.and the further recommendations of the Planning Commission, (See attached Ordinance #537, passed and approved the 8th of July, 1957). • E C C. C. 10-26-59 Page Three TWO FOOT SETBACK..ON CITRUS AVENUE -.continued 1 "On October 20, 1959, Percy Jackson and myself checked the Good Year Store building and the General Tire building now under construction, and found that the Good Year Store building is set back 8 feet from the property line and has a 4 foot canopy attached to the front of .the_ building and extends the entire length of the ,building. Also, there is no landscaping around the Good Year building. The General Tire building is set back approximately 2 feet from the property line with a canopy which extends over the property line. "I have checked and found that there are no new ordinances in conflict with the action taken by the Council on July 8, 1957, Ordinance No. 537.'• .(Signed) T. J. Stanford, Special Services Officer Councilman Heath: I would ask a question first. What are we determining tonight? Are we determin- ing what occurred.in the previous Council meeting or are we determining something as of the present? If it is something that occurred.May 27, 1957 I would like to abstain. If this is setting a policyon determining setback for future instruc- tion, I would like to take part in.the conversation. Mayor Browne .We are discussing the Minutes of 1957 ..and we are interested in whether the . .Goodyear store conforms to the Ordinance.,. It was held at the last Council meeting that it did not, but from the report submitted it evidently does,: Councilman Barnes I thought that we would possibly hear from:.the representatives of Goodyear.. tonight along.with representatives.of the General Tire building. City Clerk Flotten: We have a letter dated October 19, 19,59 .from the Jahant General Tire Company, per William F. Jahanto "I am writing to your honorable. body and the other interested parties concerning the stoppage..of work on the building in West Covina, which I intended to'occupy immediately. I.understand that the precise plan of said building was approved on May 27, 1957, and the general agreement 'was that the setback should not be more than eight feet. This building has been in the process of construction for two to three months, and it is now within three weeks of completion. C. Co 10-26-59 Page Four TWO FOOT SETBACK.ON CITRUS AVENUE.- continued "I understand that it was required that a precise plan amendment be filed and the same was filed on September 28, 1959, Further, however, it appears that this matter will not come up before your honorable body until November 4, 1959. "This building was approved by all the authorities in your city, including the Planning Department, and has been under the watchful eye of the Building Inspector since its inception. This stoppage at this late date will cause an unestimated amount of damage, and it is hoped that this can be avoided for everybody's sake. "I urgently request that this matter be placed on an earlier calendar date before your Council, at a special meeting if neces- sary, so that the approval. can be given to allow this building to be completed and thus allow me to take.possession and carry on my business as a retailer in your city, "Please call upon me if I.can answer any questions, or hurry this process. Thank you for your anticipated prompt consideration,and cooperation. • City Clerk Flotten; .,We also have a letter from the De Weese .:Construction Company, Inc., per Richard W. De Weese, dated October 14, 1959, which states as follows: "Our firm has a contract with Workman Investment Company for a building located at 325 N. Citrus Ave., West Covina, We applied for and were issued building permit No, 16632 on July 16, 1959' Neither during the plan check period nor at time of issuance.of the building permit was any mention,made of a setback for this building, "Construction was started shortly after the building permit was.. issued and it was readily apparent from the start that the building. was located at or close to -the East property line. Now,.after° approximately 75 days of construction, when work is within 3 to 4 weeks of completion, we are notified that the construction must be stopped on the Easterly 8' of the building, "This places our firm in an extremely hazardous position finan- cially, inasmuch as we are unable to do the work necessary to qualify for our next payment. Also, we may have substantial damage in -the event of rain while the project is delayed, .Need- less to say, our overhead costs continue while the job is delayed. This, of course, is entirely apart from the injuries suffered by the owner, L� C. C. 10-26-59 Page Five TWO .FOOT SETBACK ON CITRUS AVENUE..- continued "Because of the dangers of,additional damages from delay, we feel that a special meeting should be called to correct this grevious error. There certaily.,,is such a thing as responsibility in departments of city government and it would only be right, in view of the circumstances,_ that:an extra effort be made to reach an early solution." Mayor Browne Were the Goodyear people notified this would be on the Age'pda tonight? .City Clerk Flotten. `.Yes, they were, Mayor Brown. ..Is there anyone here on their behalf? Mr, Paul Sutro, President of the Hollywood Hills Development Corpora- tion of 4900 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, stated: I represent the owner of the property and there are representatives from Goodyear here also. First of all, we built the building of Goodyear's for Goodyear and I want to say right now, before we get further into this, that in case we have violated any Ordinance requirements of the City.of West Covina in the placement of this building.-,.— we do not believe we have but in case we have.o.,we wish to be advised of this and we will immedi- ately take steps to rectify -any error or violation. Secondly we were advised through the Manager,,:of .the. Goodyear store immediately upon his recognition that the building'.adjoining was set closer to the street than the .Goodyear building was. He isn't paid to watch the, neighboring building as it goes.up., and we do not have a representa- tive checking these things, so. -it is natural that a building could be fairly well advanced before any attention is paid as to the set- back, but immediately upon observance of this setback he notified the Western representative of Goodyear who notified us and we in turn immediately got in touch and came over to the Planning Department of West Covina, and the Building Department, to find out what it was all about. Basically, we want to make this..testimony short. We have followed the requirements of the City of West Covina to the letter. We set back the 8-feet which was the requirement at the time we applied for a building permit. It was the desire of Goodyear to come up to,the sidewalk,,,,they wanted to do this very badly.... and they weren't allowed. We bowed to the desire of the City of West Covina and we set back the 8-feet knowing'in our own minds, through the require- ment under the Precise Plan,,that all others would be required to do the same. Unfortunately, this is not the case, apparently, and we feel that we are badly hurt because of it'. Goodyear feels the same way, • C. C. 10-26-59 `' Page Six TWO FOOT SETBACK ON CITRUS AVENUE continued Mr. Paul Sutro - continued: We do not want to appear before you:=in any manner of trying to be belligerent or demanding, or anything of this nature. We are here in a very cooperative manner. We want to do anything we can. We feel we are the innocent party here -and we leave it up to you,to try to dig us out of this dilemma..; If there is an answer to it we would like to know. We have given ;it a great deal of thought. We do,not want to hurt anybody, or be hurt,.either. This covers our basic thoughts on this matter and we will be helpful in any way that we can, and•answer.any questions. The Goodyear people are here if any questions are to be asked of them, Mayor Brown: All we.can do tonight is decide whether -the.Minutes were in error, or the Ordin- ance in error, whichever the case may be. We cannot legally change the setback other than by a correction .of the Minutes, but it seems odd that _.this building should be under, con- struction some 60 days, before any,body.found it was illegal, and be inspected in this time. Councilman Pittenger: I think it is equally odd that the repre- sentative of the Goodyear store is from .the same firm as this representative of the,General Tire store. Mr..Lynch was here at the time of the dis- cussion of the setback and when we:moveq it from 20-feet to 8-fe:et Mr, Lynch stated he was agreeable. The same firm comes back represent- ing General Tire store and has gone:ahe,ad and built within 2-feet of ' the sidewalk. This seems strange to me. I do not feel that Mr., Lynch. has forgotten this thing this soon.. There may be some laxity of,duty on both sides of the picture. I do not want to be difficult on -this thing, as I feel there is no great difference whether the building is 8-feet or 2-feet. What is, fair for one is fair fdr all,:.but we have before'us tonight restric- tions on other property which is very important and which we want to maintain. If you maintain it,. -.-for one district in the City,- maintain it for the other. I cane by this building and the wall' of this new building from 50 or 60-feet back almost blocks out the Goodyear store and if I were Good- year I would be up here screaming about that because it will obviously affect their business. I might add, so far as I am concerned, the Minutes of May 27, 1957 are correct. I remember that.the present Mayor Brown's basis for n change was a concern with "no parking" in the front of the building and that was why we moved it from 20-feet to 8-feet. There was also the provision that the 8-feet should have proper landscaping and I think Goodyear might be in violation of the 4-foot canopy, Eight feet from the property line.... and that is it. There is also supposed to be landscaping, C. C. 10-26-59 Page Seven TWO FOOT SETBACK ON CITRUS AVENUE - continued Mr. Sutro: ,I would like to interject at this point on the matter of the canopy. According to the.uniform building code, by which the.City ofWest Covina is governed_.along with many other communities, the building itself does conform to:the setback line. The canopy comes under a different heading of canopies or marquees and that is separated from the building as such. This is something we have gone into quite thoroughly because- tlais has come up before in other communi- ties. A canopy is a separate.entity from the building so long as the canopy is not a part and parcel of.the building, not used as part of the building, but stricly as a canopy, Councilman Mottinger: The only thing I could a my recollection or maybe it my non -recollection, recall any intent to have it less than 8-feet in the not recall this particular situation, so the position is such that I couldn't honestly say the Minutes are is the only comment I can make omit: dd that might be you could call is that I do not Minutes. I do it puts me in incorrect, That Councilman Barnes: I do not have anything to add other than the remarks of Councilman. Brown, at that • time, when there Vas a discussion re- garding Filling Station pumps set at 13-feet and Councilman Brown'x.__ comment was that it would be more favorable to set 5 to 7-feet back from the sidewalk. I think this 8-feet was arrived at as an arbitrary figure when we discussed it, at.least that is my recollection. The 8-feet would not allow cars to park in front of the building and still it would give a proper setback. That was the way I interpreted it. Mayor Browne After'going through the complete Minutes there was quite a bit of discussion_ whether it should be 5, 7, 8 or nothing,, and I know at the time my argument was that I didn't.want a 20-4+0ot setback because of possible parking'in front of building, and also it would become -'a storage spot or place to dispose of all kinds of debris, so after going over the Minutes it is questionable in my -mind. what the full intent of the motion was.- I asn't in favor of any exceeding 8-feet so I will accept the motion to approve the Minutes as they stand or to make a correct. Mr. Sutro: According to Precise Plan.... any Precise Plan is as indicated it is, a Precise Plane If there is any question in your minds at all about the fact that "anything less than 8-feet", it is then a problem of "whether or not it is a Precise Plan'. How can a Precise Plan be "precise" if it is either 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8-feet? It is either one thing or another., If,:there is a Precise Plan,.,that says the setbac)K is 3-feet -you set back 3-feet, if. it `says 8-feet you set back 8-feet, or we cannot tell where we stand.''. Mayor Brown: - I think we all understand what "precise" means. M C. C. 10-26-59 TWO FOOT SETBACK ON CITRUS AVENUE - continued Page Eight From the audience: Goodyear talked about wanting to come closer to the sidewalk than the-8-feet and this Ordinance stated 8-feet, so where is the pattern to come closer? Did -Goodyear ask permission to come closer? Were they denied permission to come to the sidewalk? So far as we know they built this and didn't ask for any variation. Mayor Brown: The last time anything was discussed by the Council on the Goodyear store was in public hearing in 1957. From the audience: There is no record of Goodyear asking. Mayor Brown: Perhaps not on Council level, although they might have talked to the various Department heads, but not necessarily to Council. I am Mr. Alsop of O°Melveney and Myers and the records of the _ Minutes of the Planning Commission of May 1, 1957 show definitely that Mr. Lynch of the South Hills Realty Company reported to the Planning Commission that Goodyear wanted to build to the property line.: • Mayor Brown: We know that there was a change between what the Planning Commission recommended and what Council wanted. Councilman Pittenger: I think the Minutes are correct and I would make a motion that the Minutes be accepted as correct as submitted. Councilman Barnes: I will second the motion. At the question of Mayor Brown the motion was unanimously carried, with Councilman Heath abstaining from voting on -the basis that he was not on the Council at the time of the discussion relative to this matter. SCHEDULED MATTERS HEARINGS ZONE VARIANCE NO. 289 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Sepenade Robert J. and Betty and Herring Avenues. J. Palt $; h APPROVED Conditional approval of modification of sideyard requirements - Planning Commis- sion Resolution No. 801. J Letter of,appeal ppeal filed by the applicant on October 9, 1959. C. C. 10-26-59 Page Nine ZONE VARIANCE NO. 289 - continued City Clerk Flotten: Let the record show that Proof of'Publida- tion of the notice of this -hearing in the West Covina Tribune of October 15, 1959 is on file and that 37 notices were mailed to people.in'the area. The letter of appeal of R. J. Palush and Betty Jo Palush, dated October 9, 1959, was read by the City Clerk, Mayor Brown opened the public hearing and stated that all those desir ing to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. Mr. Robert Jo Palush I have little more to add except what 927 Herring Avenue is in the application and in the letter, West Covina The whole variance discussed was based on the one study plan which we were not aware of. My application for variance was to allow additional height to the present fence. I have a 60-inch fence now and the Ordinance requires a maximum of 42-inches and I will lower it to 42-inches, if necessary. The original request was to raise it to 60--inches, but I feel it is impractical to move the fence as I have flower beds and all those things in now. If I move it to another location I will have more outside - than in - my present yard • Mr. John 0°Shell In addition to the comments of the letter 815 So Serenade and to what Mr. Palush has said, the point West Covina I would like to bring out is the fence .was up 7 months before it was brought to anyone's attention. It was brought to the attention of the Building Inspector when it was being built and there was no effort made at that time to curtail the building of the fence at the time it was being built. Later it all came up that it is in violation of the Ordianceo There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed, Councilman Pittenger:. On the west side of this lot, how far is that fence from the curb now? Applicant: 12-feet to the curb. Councilman Pittenger: Which is a parkway, Councilman Heath: 2-feet inside the property line, Mayor Brown: That would be 10-feet from the cul-de-sac, Councilman Heath: I will say one thing for Mr, Palush, I sat in on the Planning Commission meeting and somehow missed the discussion on this one, although I do not know how I did it unless ,they took it up at a study session which I missed, but I did not think I missed any, How- ever, I could see the way the meeting was carried on that they could �J • C. C. 10-26-59 ZONE VARIANCE.NO. 289 -continued Councilman Heath - continued: Page Ten have readily talked of a different plan than the one presented by the applicant. The City Clerk read Resolution No. 801 of the Planning Commission recommending their conditional approval. Councilman Barnes: Did you apply for a Zone Variance before you built the fence? Mr. Palush: No, we weren't aware of the 25- foot Ordinance. We had a construction company build the fence and he was told by us where to put the fence. He indicated he had checked with the tract office and F.H.A. and supposedly made all necessary checks.. He told us the parkway was 10-feet and we said to put it in an additional 2-feet to be on the safe side, and this he did. Councilman Barnes: I think this gentleman has a problem. He has a 6-foot fence and the ordinance allows only 42-inches. Evidently the contractor didn't check too closely with the City Hall before install- ing the fence. I can see the problem with regard to setting the fence back to where the Planning Commission recommends because he will be maintaining two yards ...... one outside and one inside. I only wish we could find some solution to his problem. Possibly the only thing to do is to cut it down to 42-inches. Councilman Mottinger: Mayor Brown: Mr. Dosh: Councilman Pittenger: Councilman Heath: Mayor Brown: As I understand this, the point at which he is in violation is the height of the fence.o..location isn't the problem. Is that correct? That would seem to be the problem. If he left it at 42-inches he would be legal. That is correct. Evidently the 42-inches is legal even if he comes back up to his neighbor's property. Was there any objection to this fence? None were filed, It has been posted and his neighbors have testified in favor of - it. /Councilman Mottinger: So far as I am concerned, I.see no objec- / tion. We have the problem of an ordin- ance on the books and it is hard to turn our backs on it. O.C. 10-26-59 Page Eleven ZONE VARIANCE NO. 289 d continued Mr. O'Shell. At the Planning Commission A petition was submitted from the entire area of those affected by it and all signed in favor of it,- it wouldn't be detrimental. He lives like a fish in a bowl because we can see over the 5-.feet as we are above his property. I am wondering why it can't be left at 5-feet for his convenience, because in spite of this it is inconvenient now. We can see into his horse at the present level because of the apex of they cul-de-sac. Councilman Mo.ttinger. There is discussion here of a point well taken. The frontage of this house is.on Herring and we can't penalize people for frontages or setbacks on both streets for the same amount. It does not seers fair, Councilman Barnes. After looking at the pictures I think this man has a hardship case,- other yards are higher than his. Councilman Pittenger. Slow high is this. I am quite familiar with the area and I do not think this is a particularly elevated area, • Mr. nosh. It is a comparatively flat area, Mayor Brown. They moved the elevation on these lots. Councilman Mottinger. In this particular cases if we so desired we could approve the variance, but if we wanted to allow `the fence as it is, it would be an exception to the :Planning Commission's recommendations. City Attorney Williams. Grant `the variance as asked for, no stipu- lation and permitted to remain as is, Councilman Miottinger. You could grant it, but not according to t, the Planning Commission recommendations. City Attorney Williams. You can put a condition on it permitting it higher than 42®inches, within front 25-feet and designate where it is located or permitted. Councilman Mottinger. What about granting the variance but not according -to the plan specified? City Attorney Williams. `ou­can accomplish it by doing the same thing the Planning Commission did in granting it, but delete the condition imposed with reference to the location. E__] C. C. 10-26-59 ZONE VARIANCE NO. 289 - continued Page Twelve Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and ---- carried, that Zone Variance No, 289 be approved subject to,the'recom- mendations of the Planning Commission except that conformance to the Study Plan dated September 16; 1959 be deleted and that approval be granted on the Variance as requested dated August 26, 1959. UNCLASSIFIED USE PRMIT NO.27 AND PRECISE PLAN AND RECLASSI- PICATION NO, 128 (1405) (Jack Dubrove) APPROVED LOCATION: Northwest side of California. Avenue, north of Walnut Creek Wash, Request for adoption of Precise Plan of Design and Reclassification from Zone R-A., Potential C-2 to Zane C-2 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No, 804. Resolution No, 804 of the Planning Commission was read. Mayor BrowgIopened the public hearing and stated that all those desir- ing to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr, Jack Dubrove _ We have been on this quite a while and is1258 N. Sweetzer. I believe I have complied with most of Los Angeles the requirements and would appreciate a favorable decision from the.Council so we can get this started. There being no further testimony, the -'hearing was declared closed. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried' that Unclassified Use Permit No, 27 and Precise Plan and Reclassification No. 128 (1405) be approved, subject to the recommen- dations of the Planning Commission; driveway location as shown on Precise Plan to be moved to 2001 from the intersection. ZONE VARIANCE NO, 292 LOCATION: North side of San Bernardino 'West Covina Apartments Road, between Orange and Irwindale (M. Pick) Avenues. (1535 W. San Bernardino Road) APPROVED Request to permit deta,chpd identifying sign in Zone R-3 denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 809. Letter•of appeal filed by the applicant on October 8, 1959. The City Clerk read the Planning Commission recommendations as indi- cated under their Resolution No. 809. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing an - P p g d stated that all those desir- ing to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. 0 0 Li C. Co 10-26-59 ZONE VARIANCE NO. 292 - continued Mr. M. Pick 1928 E. Merced Avenue West Covina located. The sign will be of the only lights will be on the Page Thirteen We have a special case about a sign -for two reasons. It is a large development with 196 units and secondly, it is 92-feet distant from the center of the street to where the sign is going -to be no nuisance to the neighbors because words "West Covina Apartments". Mr. E. Grey I am a member of the company designing 253 E. Puente Avenue this sign and I feel there are several Covina things to be considered in this thing. The amount of illumination given off is considerably less than the lights extended from the street lamps, so that lights bothering anybody will be rather a hollow argument. Under the existing legal regulation a 32 square foot sign, which is about the size of your bulletin board on the wall, is permitted and viewed from the street, which will be sharp angled unless on approach, at that distance would be of questionable value. Placing the sign in the middle is 507-feet and 300-feet from either boundary. On one side, adjoining immediately, is C-2 or whatever a gasoline station requires. Across the street is an open field and it is reasonable, on a thoroughfare like San Bernardino Road, -it will be zoned commercial when it is ready for use. On the east side is R-1,,but at the rear of their property the R-1 doesn't face on San Bernardino Road. There is, across the street, a few residences from which the sign might be visible but those are even several hundred feet away. The great size of this project seems to need a larger sign. It is better to build one large sign than two signs 100-feet apart and would get the message across.a little better. IN OPPOSITION I do not think there is any sign that Mrs. Johnson won't give some nuisance as to lighting.. 4136 N. Yaleton We have the Food Giant near us and we. had,a lighting problem which has Just become rectified now. If these apart- ments are so large why do they need a sign to advertise them? When he presented his plan why didn't he request a sign at that time'if it -is so important to him.... it isn't even, a sign, it is like a big want ad. He also made'a statement that the'F.H.A, wouldn't permit him to advertise in the newspaper and that is an odd statement which I feel should be clarified. He also made the statement he needed a sign that could be seen by traffic traveling 45 miles per hour, but this is a posted 35 mile per hour speed limit street. If this is permitted we feel we will get the full benefit from these lights and theywill be a nuisance. Mr. Johnson of 4136 N. Yaleton Avenue stated that he was also in oppositionto this sign. �J C. C. 10-26-59 Page Fourteen GONE VARIANCE NO. 292 - continued IN REBUTTAL Mr. Pick: This sign is going to be on an Angle on a corner between buildings and there will be no lights visible to be seen by neighboring dwellings. There being no further testimony, the hearing was declared closed. Councilman Heath: I sat in on this at the Commission meeting and I believe the intent of /RM the Planning Commission was to hold w regarding their Sign Ordinance. They did, however, toward the end of their discussion agree to permit two smaller signs to be placed nearer to the road. I feel there are times you are going to have to make slight variations when hardship cases are presented and I feel the Commission overlooked one fact which has been brought out, and clearly, tonight. Ninety-two feet back from the road, on a private street, two smaller signs wouldn't be of much use and I think the Commission lost sight of that fact. I,personally, would rather see one large sign back and angled by building than two smaller signs out near the street like a billboard arrangement.... and it would be more like a billboard arrangement than this one sign would be, placed father back. I -feel there is justification for a variance from the strict rules of the sign ordinance due to,the distance from the street. Another thing brought out is the fact there are 200 apartments that have to be rented,and if they are rented are a benefit to the City. We approved this apartment and were glad to get it into the City for revenue and I do -think we shouldn't hinder the man in any way to have him get these apartments rented. If there is a nuisance factor from this sign, I think that can be brought up at a later date, but 92-feet from the street and across the.stree.t, I do not think will annoy people. Councilman Pittenger. - Mr. Pick: moving in and out, and so we time. We would have the "no become. full. Councilman Pittenger: This would appear to be a temporary sign, is that correct? No, I would not say temporary. It is a large project and therefore there will be a great deal of vacancies, people will probably need this sign most of the w renting" blocked off if the apartments kind of sign placed 'there and but now it is pretty bold and should help solve the problem. I think the fact it is back 92-feet from the street has quite some bearing on it. Whether it would be an asset would be the how attractive it was. I.can't tell that, garish to me but probably in renting it 40 0 C. C. 10­26-59 ZONE VARIANCE NO. 292 - � ontinued Page Fifteen Councilman gottinger: What bothers me is the possible estab- lishment of a precedent in granting something not conforming to the ex'i§ting ordinance. We have quite a number of apartments around town and -will get more and if we grant this there is no reason to turn down similar applications in the future. I do not -think we should lose sight of the fact that the Precise Plan was approved on the basis of the ordin- ance as it existed, which included restrictions on signs. However, I realize the problem there and in my own personal opinion, which isn't official here so far as voting is.concerned, it seems to me a sign would be all right although not necessarily showing dollars and cents and which would not possibly give the billboard affect which this gives the impression of being, although it has no bearing on 'the situation. Councilman Barnes: How high do you intend to have this sign set up?. Mr. Pick: 4-feet from the ground. Councilman Barnes: 4-feet from the ground, making a total of 12-feet. Is there any possibility of putting a time limit on its use, say one or two years? Mr. Pick: If we kept apartments occupied we would not need the sign, only need is for recognizing the project. If we kept the project completely rented all the time the sign won't be needed. Councilman Barnes: I am wondering about a time limit of say two years, then the sign should be taken down after that length of time. Mayor Brown: So far as setting a precedent, lb--lieve every large operation coming into the City has had sign variances one way or another. I think our sign Ordinance is entirely too restrictive and I think some sign will be necessary to identify the project, and the project can only cost.the City money if it is not kept rented. '4,V'n C,9,Q EP Motion by, Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Barnes, t"t, Zone Variance No. 292 permitting a detached sign of 96 square feet, with a maximuitt height of 12-feet,as per drawing submitted dated October 26, 1959, and located on the northwest corner of a privately owned cul-de-sac street to the north of the frontage road,be approved. Mayor Brown called a recess. The Council reconvened at 9:10 P. M. • 9 C. C. 10-26-59 Page Sixteen PROPOSED AMENDMENT. NO. 32 A proposal to amend the provisions of' City Initiated Ordinance No. 325, affecting permissible DENIED uses and limitations of permissible uses in Zone C-R. Approval recommended by Planning Commis- sion Resolution No. 800.. Held over from City Council meeting of October 13, 1959. Mayor Brown: The hearing was held over from the last meeting so that all property owners could be notified. Have they been noti— fied? City Clerk Flotten: They have been so notified. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing and stated that all those desir- ing to present testimony should rise and be sworn in by the City Clerk. A. Jett 905.S. Glendora Avenue West Covina Mr. A. Hathcock 2612 Larkwood Street West Covina I would like to go on record to indicate that I am opposed to this Amendment No. 32 to the Ordinance. I would like to go on record as saying that when we acquired the property it was R-A, Potential C-2. All of our applications shown were for C-2 and I would like to oppose the amendment on the C-R zoning if and when it is appli- cable to the property. There being no further testimony, the hearing was,declared closed. Councilman Mottinger: I seem to be at a bitter loss, although I do not know whether others of the Council are or not, but I was studying.. this over the week -end and the Ordinance does not tie in with Reso- lution 800 and frankly I could�i°t make sense to it. Mayor Brown: What they did in the Resolution was expand some of the uses. Councilman Mottinger: I realize that, but referring to Section 90.0.1, Section 900.1 doesn't have any reference to all uses permitted under Zone R-P. I have Ordinance 496. City Manager Aia,ssa: This is amending Ordinance No. 325. 0 C. C. 10-26-59 Page Seventeen PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 32 -.continued Councilman Mottingero This is amending`Ordinance 325, but it is Ordinance 496. I wasn't so much interested in the uses, they look like good conditions, but the controversial point was Section 900.2, Paragraph 1, in which at least 50% of the total floor space of the area shall be used for office space. There is no reference to that particular section, per se, and I can't tie it down. The revision calls for revision to Section 900.1 but there is no reference to the 50% of floor area. Mayor Brown: That is Ordinance 429, they are referring to Ordinance No. 325. Councilman Mottingero In that case they have not made any consideration of this particularly disputed point of floor area of buildings.. Councilman Pittenger: I read it and it looks like they are spinning their wheels.... they have not done anything. There are one or two minor changes which doesn't make any sense to me and I do not think it was worth doing. I think this thing.needs restudying. We sat on this matter for four years and there has been no develop- ment in that time and I think it is time to,�.straighten things out. Originally, when the Court House went in there I thought we would see some development and potentially we have the library going in, but are getting no development, we're just not getting it. I think it is' time we started from the beginning and sit with the property owners to get something that they can live with, with perhaps some architec- tural overlay across the street from the County buildings. I have never gone for some of the restrictions placed on this. We have to face the fact that these men who have held the property are entitled to development and we apparently have held back development. Three years of laboring with it is long enough and indicates we might be wrong and that maybe we should do what we can to make it right. Councilman Heath: on the Council but I was on come out of it, working with to try to get a solution and I would certainly agree. All I have heard since I cameon the Council was C-R zoning. It was .done before I came a committee to see what could possibly property owners, Council and others possibly some compromise. I feel this C-R,zoning is much too restrictive and is treating this property like a sacred cow. I question whether it is as valuable and should be controlled as much as.has been intimated. I think the study made of the C-R should be stricken from the books and a Block Study made and put on a more practical zoning and not something we are trying to make on a piece of property or development which is highly impractical. C. C. 10-26-59 Page Eighteen PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 32 - continued Councilman Heath - continued: I do not even go for the architectural overlay on buildings across the street, I think it is silly. Councilman Barnes: I studied this along with Councilman Heath and maybe at that time we had different ideas,but at the time it was the consensus of opinion that we would want some control on the front- age across the street from the Civic Center. This was brought out in hearings and the Minutes that we all restudied and I thought at the time we were a little too restrictive. However, I do not think we should open this directly across from the Civic Center to C-2 use and let anything go in haphazardly there. It wouldn't be good development and I don't think they would be happy after they got it. Probably there would be a filling station on every corner and I do not know what else, but I do not think it would enhance the property nor would they realize full development. Perhaps an overlay would be good as sugges- ted by Councilman. Pittenger, but otherwise I think it is possibly too restrictive in that the land has sat there as long as it has. I think we should go into some sort of a study on this again. • Councilman Mottinger: I think the only alternative is to sit down with the Planning Commission again because I think it will have to start at the Planning Department. My thinking is that the alterations pro- posed do not cure the problem., I think we have to sit down and start working it out again. Councilman Heath: I would carry it along a bat more than Councilman Mottinger has stated. Repre- sentatives of Council and Council have tried to solve this C-R zoning. The Planning Commission spent an awful lot of time on this zone trying to come up with this proposal they have right now. I think the approach should be that of eliminating C-R zoning completely and not trying to change what went into it, not trying to write requirements for C-R zoning but knocking it off completely. Possibly then a Block Study, with study in mind of eliminating C-R, and coming up with zoning appropriate to that area. Councilman Pittenger: You think this C-R has a stigma to everybody now? Do you think we should go back to C-2 automatically? Councilman Heath: No, but make a block study to see if we can come up with zoning that is appro- priate whether it be C-2, M-1 or what have you. Y.yy 1, C. C. 10-26-59 Page Nineteen PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 32 - continued Councilman Pittenger: I think the symbol is what we are fight- ing. I think it is too restrictive but it could be somewhat compatible with the land across the street and the whole civic center and I'm not back on the 50% office space routine, but removing the name of C-R would help. Mayor Browne I discussed this with Mr. Bennett and the Planning Commission when Hancock Park was discussed. I voted against the C-R originally. It is entirely too restrictive, telling him entirely too much what he must do with the property. I agree with Mr. Heath and Mr. Pittenger that the word C-R has a stigma itself. C-R, for the investment they have, couldn't possibly come out financially and become a blight rather than an asset to the City. I can't see anything but to make a complete restudy of the whole civic center area, Block Study, Precise Plan Study, whatever has to be done. I think C-R should be removed from the books. Councilman Mottinger: I approve with the idea of a study but do not approve eliminating the name or changing the name or going to any par- ticular zoning. I think we should keep an open mind in studying the thing to eliminate the curse placed on it by the ordinance which we have. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that City Initiated Proposed Amendment No. 32 be denied. Councilman Barnes: I think it should be stipulated that any studies that are made of this area, the property owners should get a copy of the result of these studies. Councilman Pittenger: I think a committee of property owners should meet with us. We are going to go back to the same thing, the Planning Commission one way and the Council the other, and any discussion may not be acceptable to the property owners. I think they should come in. They know what we want, what can be developed, and if they can prove it can't be done something else might be tried. Mayor'Brown: Perhaps there should be a committee of two Councilmen and two Commissioners and all the property owners. This might get further than with a larger group of Council and Commission. We can appoint a committee from the Council tonight and the Commission can do the same and then contact property owners to see if a date can be set up. LJ C. C..10-26-59 GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page Twenty Mr. Manning I got a Christmas tree lot that I've had 1002 Charlotte Street here for 8 years. The lot is at the West Covina corner of State Street and the Freeway frontage road. I understand another such business is to be on the next lot over. This would be as you come underneat the Freeway at Vincent and there is a traffic hazard there now.' He would have to fill in the ditch and if he did so and it rained it would put me out of business as it would flood my whole area. I am in the same spot as where the V.F.W. sold fireworks this year and my place would not hinder traffic in any way, but where this other party wants to place his business would cause just a traffic jam. Mayor Browne I believe a ditch has been put there for drainage purposes. Mr. Dosh: Yes, that ditch must remain open and to use it a pipe to carry the drainage would have to be installed if anything was desired to be placed there. City Clerk Flotten: The location Mr. Manning had previously was not at State Street and the Frontage Road, it was at State Street and Glendora Avenue. These Christmas tree applications were a matter that was to come up later tonight. Only two of the requests made infringe on each other's territory. There are six applications for locations, which are as follows: Tahoe Christmas Company St. Christopher's Men's_.Club F. E. Manning George Zaccara Eastland Ghapter,City of Hope (Howard Schestack) Raymond C. Cambon 111 North Citrus Street 629 S. Glendora Avenue State and California Glendora, between Merced and Wescove West Covina Plaza by the Clock California and State Street Mayor Brown: The only problem here is one we did have on the 4th of July in that all parking is on State Street. If these two are granted,exits and entrances could be at California and .State Street. Councilman Pittenger: You would have parking on California and hold traffic up. City Clerk Flotten: They could park across in the Plaza park- ing lot. C.. Co 10-26-59 Page Twenty -One SALE OF CHRISTMAS TREES - continued Mr. Manning: I have barriers to my lot and the only way to get onto my lot is from State Street. City Clerk Flotten: Perhaps we could get in touch with the other applicant and see if he could change locations, Mr. Dosho If he does stay here he would have to go to some expense to put in a pipe on California - we have to have that. Councilman Mottinger: I think this is a matter that could be handled administratively, City Clerk Flotten: Will it be all right for definite loca- tions to be arranged administratively and then report to Council? Mayor Brown: All right, and I think we all agree that everything be done not to make any traffic jam at Vincent any worse than what we already have at Christmas. • City Manager Aiassa: Perhaps we could turn it over to the various City Department committees. Councilman Heath: Last year the City of Hope had painted Christmas trees next to the fence next to the Freeway. City Manager Aiassa: That was State property and we notified the State, but not in time. Councilman Heath: I think we should then ask for a more presentable enclosure for painting Christmas trees. Mr, Manning: Is that really the City of Hope? I understand it was some guy who was just giving them 10% off the top, Mayor Brown: I don't know,but if that is the case there would be some question of the waiving of the license fee. • • C. C. 10-26-59 Page Twenty -Two CITY CLERK'S REPORTS PRECISE PLAN NO. 48 Accept Street Improvements (Frank DePietro) APPROVED LOCATION: Northwest corner of Harbert Street and Roberto Avenue. Accept street improvements (sidewalks and drive -ways) and authorize release of Pacific Employers Insurance Company Bond No. B-01-B-57911 in the amount of $750.00. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried, that street improvements in Precise Plan No. 48 be accepted and authorization given for the release of Pacific Employers Insurance Company Bond No. B-01-B-57911 in the amount of $750.00. PROJECT NO. C-90 Accept Street Improvements (Pioneer Paving Company) APPROVED LOCATION: East side of Glendora Avenue, between Merced Avenue and Wescove Place. Accept street improvements and authorize release of Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company Performance Bond in the amount of $999.95. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that street improvements in Project No. C-90 be accepted and authorization given for the release of Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company Performance Bond in the amount of $999.95. TRACT NO. 21566 Accept Street Improvements (Southwood Construction Co., Don Wilpon, President) APPROVED LOCATION: Northwest corner of Sunset Avenue and Francisquito Avenue. Accept Street and Sanitary Improvements and authorize release of Seaboard Surety Company Bond No. 522995 in the amount of $101,650.00. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded carried, that street and sanitary sewer be accepted and authorization given for Company Bond No. 522995 in the amount of PRECISE PLAN NO. C-1 AREA Accept Street Improvements (Bud's Bootery) APPROVED by Councilman Heath and improvements in Tract No. 21566 the release of Seaboard Surety $101,650.00. LOCATION: 229 S. Glendora Avenue Accept street improvements and authorize release of Hartford Accident and Indem- nity Company Bond No. 3084598 in the amount of $2,000.00. C. C. 10-26-59 Page Twenty -Three PRECISE PLAN NO. C-1 AREA - continued Motion by Councilman Mottinger,.seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that street improvements in Precise.Plan No. C-1 Ar.eabe approved and authorization given for the release of Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company Bond No. 3084598 .in the amount of $.2,000.00. PROJECT NO. C-42 Accept Street Improvements (Corwell and Larson) APPROVED LOCATION: Vine Avenue from 158 feet east of Graybar Avenue to Leaf Avenue. Accept street improvements and authorize release of Pacific Indemnity Company Performance Bond No.,--'234743 in the amount of $17,337.50. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and carried, that street improvements in Project No. C-42 be accepted and authorization be given for the release of Pacific Indemnity Company Performance Bond.No. 234743 in the amount of $17,337.50. PROJECT NO. C-88 LOCATION: Workman Avenue from Azusa Accept Street Improvements Avenue to 400 feet westerly. (Sully -Miller) APPROVED Accept street improvements. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman,Barnes and carried, that street improvements in Project No. C-88 be.accepted. Mayor Brown not voting. PROJECT NO. C-97 LOCATION: Corporation Yard Accept Police and Fire Facilities Pavement Accept pavement improvements and authorize Improvements release of Continental Casualty Company (American Asphalt Paving) Performance Bond No. 152-3060 In the APPROVED amount of $4,179.45. (This is without sidewalks) Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and carried, that Police and Fire.Facilities Pavement Improvements in Project No. C-97 be accepted and authorization given for the release of Continental Casualty Company Performance Bond No. 152-3060 in the amount of $4,179.45. TRACT NO. 17101 LOCATION: Boradmoor Avenue.and Glenmere Accept Sanitary Sewer Street. Facilities APPROVED Accept sewer facilities. No bond released until street improvements are accepted and approved by City Council. • C. C. 10-26-59 TRACT NO. 17101 - continued Page Twenty -Four Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Sanitary Sewer Facilities in Tract No. 17101 be accepted. PRECISE PLAN NO. 17 LOCATION: Southwest corner of Citrus Accept Sanitary Sewer Street and Workman Avenue, Sewer Plan Facilities No. SP-156. APPROVED Accept sewer facilities and authorize release of American Automobile Insurance Company Bond No. S-4684604 in the amount of $1,650.00. Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and carried, that sanitary sewer facilities in Precise Plan No. 17 be accepted and authorization given.for the release of American Automobile Insurance Company Bond No. 5-4685604 in the amount of $1,650.00. RESOLUTION NO. 1679 Alaska Street Sewers Approving bond to • guarantee cost ADOPTED Mayor Brown: The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING A BOND TO GUARANTEE THE COST OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND THE TIME OF COMPLETION IN ALASKA STREET IN SAID CITY". Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said Resolutipn be adopted. Motion passed on roll call. as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1679 PROJECT NO. C-82 LOCATION: Lot 7, Tract No. 14110. Award of Contract Arturo Street and Rio Verde Drive (Storm Drain) Tony Pipe Line Informal bids received and opened in APPROVED the office of the City Engineer on October 14, 1959. The bids were as follows: TONY PIPE LINE $1,674.75 CROWELL AND LARSON 1,700.00 BONHAM AND CLAUSON 1,723.00 B. J..ZARUBICA 11890.00 • • C. C. 10-26-59 PROJECT NO.. C-82 - continued Page Twenty -Five Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that the Tony Pipe Line be awarded the contract on storm drain in Project No. C-82 as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $1,674.75 and all other bid bonds be released to the unsuccessful bidders. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None City Manager Aiassa: Mr. Dosh has provided a Summary of Account No. 152, 1959-60 Budget report which shows Projects C-82, C-102, Hollenbeck Catch Basin, Palm View Park Culvert, the Azusa -Merced Catch Basin, and possible Contingency amount. On the report there is a note that the balance remaining of $868.59 will not be sufficient to cover the costs of the two remaining projects which are estimated to cost a total of $1,400.0.0.', If both projects (Hollenbeck Street Catch Basin and Palm View Park Culvert) are con- structed this fiscal year, it will be necessary to obtain additional funds. We are going ahead but might have to eliminate one of these, Hollenbeck or Palm View Park Culvert. Perhaps the Hollenbeck Street item could be deleted until next year's budget. We are going to go as far as our funds will allow. Councilman Pittenger: I do not think there is an urgency about deleting anything. PROJECT NO. C-102 LOCATION: Sunset Avenue north of Award of Contract Service Avenue. Storm Drain Lateral and Junction Chamber Informal bids received and opened in (B. J. Zarubica) the office of the City Engineer on APPROVED October 14, 1959. Bids were as follows: B. J. ZARUBICA $1,592.00 BONHAM AND CLAUSON 16 9 5.00 TONY PIPE LINE 1,997.00 CROWELL AND LARSON 2,215.00 Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that the award of dontract on Project No. C-102 for Storm Drain Lateral and Junction Chamber go to B. J. Zarubica as the lowest responsible bidder and all other bid bonds be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: Rohe Absent: done C. Co 10-26-59 CI'IT-MANAGER REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS C-100, C-105, C-107 Bid Awarded (R. R. Dollar) Page Twenty -Six City Manager Aiassa* These are three small public -works projectsofminor things. Project C-100 is for curb return construction and the City has on deposit $263.30 for this work. The bids received on this project were as follows: R. R. DOLLAR $127.20 RUBEN DURAN 133.00 HATFIELD CONSTRUCTION 293.00 Project No. C-105 is relative to a City policy established on several previ occasions on this particular street whereby the City has taken the $2.00 per foot deposit for curb and gutter improvements and proceeded to pave the five or six feet between the edge of the paving and the gutter. The bids received for this item were as follows.- R. R. DOLLAR $420.00 HATFIELD CONSTRUCTION 5$61.00 RUBEN DURAN '580.00 Project No,"C-107 is similar to the previous project in that the City 1Fa_i_�iTF_e_aTy_­_1owered the center portion of paving in front of this residence in a participation project. This particular lowering pre- sents a nuisance drainage problem which is presently undermining our pavement. Since the people now have money available and are paying for the curb and gutter --construction, it is our intention that the City ,join the curb and gutter with three feet of pavement. The bids received on this item were as follows: R. R. DOLLAR $215.00 HATFIELD CONSTRUCTION 338.00 RUBEN DURAN 350.00 1 1 In the latter projects the lowest bid equals the amount of deposits by the home owners. Recommendation is that the bid go to the lowest responsible bidder on all three projects, R. R. Dollar. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes, that the award of contract on Project No. C-100, in the amount of $127.20, award of contract on Project No. C-105 in the amount of $420.00,and award of contract on Project No. C-107 in the amount of $215.00 go to R. R. Dollar as the lowest responsible bidder. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes. Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes., None Absent. None to C. Co 10-26-59 PLANNING COMMISSION METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION NO.' 135-161 (Don Pravitz,Corp.) APPROVED Commission on October 21, City Clerk, Page Twenty -Seven LOCATION: North side of Portner Street between Gaybar and Valinda Avenues. 0.6 Acres - 2 Lots - Area District II Approval recommended by the Planning 1959. The recommendations were read by the Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that Metes and B9unds Subdivision No. 135-161 be approved, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission.; GENERAL MATTERS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS LETTER REGARDING NOMINATION Appear before the award jury on OF CITY OF BALDWIN PARK November 16 and 17, 1959 in Springfield, RELATIVE TO ALL-AMERICA Massachusetts. CITIES AWARD Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded 0 by Councilman Barnes and carried, that a letter be sent to the City of Baldwin Park commending them on their nomination relative to the All -America Cities award and that the Mayor be authorized to sign the letter. LETTER FROM EAST SAN GABRIEL Re: Alignment of Walnut Creek Parkway VALLEY REALTY between Vincent and Glendora (Frank B. Bowker) .The letter indicates the unfair handling of Mr. Bowker's property relative to the alignment and asks for some conclu- sions to be reached relative to this so that development or disposition of the property can be pursued. X.t was consensus this matter be discussed at a study session. LETTER AND RESOLUTIONS Re: Inadequate highways connecting FROM CITY OF LA HABRA North Orange County with Los Angeles County. It was consensus that copies of the Resolutions passed by the City of West Covina,relative to Azusa Avenue through to the south as Route 39, be sent to the City of La Habra. C. C. 10-26-59 Page Twenty -Eight WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - continued LETTER FROM COUNTY BOUNDARY RE: Easterly Annexation District COMMISSION OF OCTOBER No. 21 of the City of'Covina 15, 1959 LETTER FROM CLARA B. WATTS It was indicated that this has developed 708 E. Merced'Avenue into an altercation between two indivi- West Covina duals who are neighbors and that although the City is not involved in this situation perhaps something could be handled in this matter on an administrative level through the City Manager and the City Attorney. LETTER FROM WEST COVINA Re: Permission to paint in four inch ELKS LODGE NO. 1996 letters at all crosswalks and major OF OCTOBER 26, 1959. pedestrian intersections the safety slogan "balk Carefully -Watch for Cars" which is in relation to the Pedestrian Safety Program to be conducted by the Elks. The City Manager indicated this was not a conforming sign and that it was his opinion that it should be Dept in mind that when these signs • begin to wear they become an eyesore and either they should be kept up or eventually they would probably have to be sand blasted away. The matter was referred to.the .Traffic.Safety Committee for report. CITY MANAGER REPORT'S RESOLUTION NO. 1680 Establishing and providing a pension plan and disability benefits for City employees ADOPTED The City Attorney presented and read-, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA.ESTABLISHING AND PROVIDING A PENSION PLAN AND DIS- ABILITY BENEFITS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES AND AUTHORIZING THE'EKECUTION OF AN APPLICA- TION FOR AND USES OF A CONTRACT WITH OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA". Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said Resolution be adopted.Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes-, Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent-, None Said Resolution was given No. 1680 C. C. 10-26-59 Page Twenty -Nine CITY MANAGER REPORTS - continued BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL Motion by Councilman Barnes, seconded by CONTRACT Councilman Beath and carried, that approval be given this agreement,.subject to the final confirmation of the City Attorney. SCHLANGER AND CURTIS CASE Re- Letter of April 15, 1959 in the Proposed Vincent Avenue matter of dedication of a strip of land Extension on the westerly border of property in City of West Covina for proposed Vincent Avenue extension. Upon the suggestion of the City Attorney the word "irrevocably" should be stricken from the fourth paragraph of the letter with the word "firm" to be placed in front of the cords 11C-311. It was also consensus that date be changed to January 1, 1961, and the word "shoulders" in the last paragraph should actually be called "saddles", not "shoulders". Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that Council approve and accept the letter of Curtis and Schlanger dated April 15, 1959 with the change'in date for completion of the extension to January 1, 1961,and that the word "irrevocably" be • stricken from the fourth paragraph of the letter and the word "firm" be inserted in front of the words. "C-3 BIDS FOR FIRE CHIEF'S CAR Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the City Manager be authorized to advertise for bids for the Fire Chief's car, which has been budgeted. TELEPHONE COMPANY We did not agree to gave them easement REQUEST TO.GO ACROSS under recommendation of the City Attorney. CORPORATION YARD A license agreement would be sufficient and in this license agreement we will restrict it for telephone utilities only and have the right to revoke the license within 90 days by a written notice to the licensee. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger and carried, that the Mayor be authorized to sign the license agreement relative to the above. • C. C. 10-26-59 Page Thirty CITY MANAGER REPORTS - continued REMITTANCE CASH Purchase of Remittance Cash Control CONTROL MACHINE Machine, to establish centralized cash control system, in the amount of $29739.36.. .Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that Authorization be given to the City Manager to proceed with the pur-. chase of a Remittance Control Machine in the amount of $2,739.36. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None INCREASE OF BUDGET Re: Advertising appropriation of the APPROPRIATION OF Personnel budget has been expended and ACCOUNT 115-Z it will be necessary to increase.it to complete the current budget.year 1959-60 reason, extensive advertising to fill existing vacancies. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and • carried, that the budget appropriation of Account 115-A be increased from $600.00 to $1,600.00. CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCES SECONW READING The. City Attorney presented: ORDINANCE NO. 642 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF An Ordinance Amending THE CITY OF WEST COYINA AMENDING Ordinance No. 549 ORDINANCE NO. 549". .(Civil Defense) ( Civil Defense ) ADOPTED Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Mottinger, that said Ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes,'Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Said Ordinance was given No. 642 0 Co C. 10-26-59 CITY ATTORNEY - continued RESOLUTION NO, 1681 Relating to West Covina Civil Defense and Disaster Organizations Mayor Brown-, Page Thirty -One The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA RELATING TO THE FORM OF ORGANIZATION, ESTABLISHMENT OF DIVI- SIONS AND SERVICES AND ASSIGNMENT OF. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND -POWERS WITH THE WEST COVINA CIVIL.DEFENSE AND DISASTER ORGANIZATIONS".: Hearing no objections, we will waive fur- ther reading of the body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Motting6r, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes- Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1681 RESOLUTION NO, 16812 The City Attorney presented: Commending Malcolm Co 11A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Gerschler CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING MALCOLM C,. ADOPTED GERSCHLER". Mayor Brown: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the -body of the Resolution. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger, that said Resolution be ado I pted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes.- Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger, Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 1682 LETTER FROM FRANK GARVEY Re: Reasons for suit against the City of West Covina relative to the variance re- quested by.Ray Anderson. • C� \.J L1 C. C. '10-26-59 CITY CLERK Page Thirty -Two REQUEST FROM JAMES A.DELANEY Approved map of Tract No. 22466 FOR 12 MONTH TIME EXTENSION The City Clerk stated this matter had been referred to Mr. Dosh and the City Engineer and a report had been presented to members of Council. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that time for filing of final map upon the remainder of the tract included in Tentative Map No. 22466, and not included in the - Final Map of Tract No. 22466, is hereby extended for one year retro- actively to May 26, 1959, said year to run one year from that date. PROTEST FROM LOUIS SERVIA Re: Issuance of a business license for another taxi service in the City, The City Clerk indicated that the party requesting a business license had not, as yet, returned the necessary written forms that were to be filled out so that this protest, for the present, is against no appli- cation that has been received. SELLING OF POPPIES FOR VETERANS Jewish War Veterans Auxiliary No. 1776 APPROVED PETITION FOR RENAMING OF STREET TO "TROJAN WAY" Motion by Councilman Pittenger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried, that permission be granted for the West Covina Jewish War Veterans Auxiliary No. 1776 to sell poppies on November 6 and 7, as requested in their communication of October 26, 1959. LOCATION° 1200 block of Cabana Street, between Merced Avenue and Durness Street ' -in the City of West Covina. Motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Heath and carried, that this matter be referred to the Planning'Commission relative to chang- ing of street name. CITY TREASURER Report of September, 1959 Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Barnes and carried, that the City Treasurer's report of September, 1959 be accepted and filed for the record. i • C. C. 10-26-59 Page Thirty -Three Mrs. Van Dame: At the last meeting there was the matter of the purchase negotiations for the Hanifan property but nothing was mentioned as to why this property might be purchased by the City. I. think. there should be some idea given so..the people in the City may know what you are going to use it for since the -people are paying for such City purchases. Mayor Brown: That's a very good point and possibly we may have neglected this, but it is to -- be used for an extension of Vincent Avenue. Possibly we should have clarified that. Mrs. Van Dame: Maybe if someone strikes a match to all the scrap paper you have back of your chairs, you'll get a wastepaper basket put back there. MAYOR'S REPORTS In relation to zoning applications, Precise Plans, Zone Variances and what have you, we have a flat fee in the City which is less than the advertising cost. Unfortunately, I have been through a couple- of zoning cases lately and paid $100.00 for advertising purpose. In baHabra I posted $100.00 for advertising and $50.00 for application for a;varianc.e and I can't help but feel we should keep our same fee for all zoning matters, plus advertising to be paid by the applicant and not from the City general tax fund. When we call it up to Council .ourselves, we can pay for that out of the general fund. I also feel there should be advertising in the daily paper rather than in the weekly paper which might expedite our action here as Council and help property owners. City Attorney Williams: You must publish in the official paper which is the weekly. You annually designate one of the papers and you have done that for this year. Mayor Brown: We might look to it for next July as being.in the daily paper. Councilman.Barnes: I feel that same was as Mayor Brown but I do not think, because we are making the applicant pay for it, we should ad- vertise in the daily paper necessarily, but I & think we should have the applicant pay for this advertising. I do not think it is fair for the citizens of the City, and that is what it almost amounts to, to pay for advertising for a zone variance for a particular party. I have been through the County and they charge quite a bit for advertising, but I do not think the important thing is advertising in the daily paper. We have been doing it in the past in the weekly and I think we should show the same consideration for the applicant. C. Ca 10-26-59 Page Thirty -Four MAYOR'S REPORTS - continued Mayor Brown: Maybe I'm not arguing the advertising too much as to the paper but I think" there should he posted a minimum charge for advertising in a normal zoning case so —that -,the general tax fund isn't supporting the applicants advertising of property. City Attorney Williams: I think the comment is a good one. Instead of a deposit where you refund something, make a study, determine what the average is for rezoning, variance, etc,, impose it.... otherwise in handling and rehandling of a hidden cost you will lose as much as you will gain, City Manager Aiassa: I would recommend a flat fee. We can average the fees out and get a basic fee so as to get away from refunds, Mayor Brown: Perhaps the City Manager would make a study and make a report on it, Mayor Brown: There was something I noticed in the City of Sacramento and that was in 0 relation to these closing out sales. The merchants must secure a separate license for the period specified only, which is only for ten days upthere. City Manager Aiassa: I think the City of Covina is reviewing a similar ordinance. Mayor Brown: I think this is a good thing because in the old Center we had sales like this that have dragged on and on. It was the consensus this was an excellent suggestion and that the matter should be looked into, Mayor Brown: I had a letter from Mr. Bonelli that he had talked with Mr. Salsbury rela- tive to the Badillo Storm Drain and that it is on schedule. C®axncilman Heath: Mayor Brown: I read that letter also but somewhere along the line I got the idea they were breaking ground in October. I told you that nobody would bid the canal in October. C. C. M-26-59 MAYOR'S REPORTS - continued Councilman Heath: Page Thirty -Five It is not ready to bid at this time and they are not bidding so it is not on schedule. a Councilman Barnes: I.talked with Mr. Bonelli today on the telephone and I am going to write a letter regarding the Badillo Storm Drain. It1was indicated by Mr. Salsbury in his report of October 8, 1959, that bids would not be let before February of 1960 and I feel the citizens have a right to expect some sort of relief on that -area of Badillo from Orange Avenue westerly into the Big Dalton, this fall. The City is going to bear the expense in that area of about $10'000.00to $12,000,00 this year to clean up City streets if a temporary drain is not provided this year. He (Bonneli)-asked me to write him a letter to see what could be done. Mayor Brown: This is fine, but no contractor is going_ to bid in October. February is probably the proper time. No contractor would put himself in the position of fighting the elements plus all 'other matters that occur when a contract is being fulfilled. Councilman Heath: I think the Minutes will show we would • have relief this winter. We were promised Badillo Drain as part of the bond issue would have top priority. This is one of the reasons we and the residents backed the bond issue so strenuously. I was told this would develop in October. I.do:not think it is on'schedule. Councilman Barnes: On February 17, 1959, the flood control letter stated approximately 7 months, which would be September 17, 1959. If it took 6 weeks to let these maps out.to the different utilities for - checking it still should be around November lst.for the contract to be let, and this is what I would call on schedule. Mayor Brown: They may have insinuated this, but no one would bid that job in the middle.of the winter at a reasonable figure. Councilman Barnes: What about temporary relief for the winter? Mayor Brown: \ I remember something about finishing the plans in November and bidding in the Spring. Councilman Pittenger: I remember there was supposed to be some relief for us this winter and it doesn't make any difference why it is foolish to bid it now. So far as temporary relief, we went through this last year and we won't get Baldwin Park to help us. • C. C. 10-26-59 MAYOR'S' REPORTS - continued Page Thirty -Six Mayor Brown: It was brought up that West Covina is putting undue pressure onto County department heads. That may be'finey but logic should be used and not jeopardize the things the City may want in the future. Department heads are just as important as Bonelli is. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Pittenger: The corner of Wescove and Glendora was granted zoning for a real estate office there. I.think we granted only one lot with entrance off Glendora. White rock has been put in where the lawn was and it looks as if they have now gone to the neat house east and done the same thing. It looks like both pieces are R-P. See if there was R-P zoning on both lots granted. I think we granted only one with entrance off Glendora, Councilman Heath: I would like Mr. Stanford to keep a check on that Oldsmobile Agency going in on Workman to be sure they live up,to the stipulations of zoning. What was the outcome of the zoning requested in the County at the end of Hollenbeck Street where it was substandard streets and small lots. City Manager Aiassa: No action as yet. I will check'it out. as soon a.s we get the information. Councilman death: Whatt..about the commercial ,zoning at the end of Azusa? City Manager Aiassa: I think that was tabled also. I will check it out and see what•happened' to it. Mrs. Van Dame: When they subdivided near where I live they hacked up our driveway and there was nothing there except dirt. The contractor was made to fix it but he never -fixed it right because the first rain that came along it was a mess. I wonder if it could be fixed by the City because it occurred during the subdivision of adjoin- ing property.. It was consensus that since this was on private property the City could not do anything and that it should have been the responsibility of the contractor doing the work there to see that any damage was properly repaired, • Ca C. 10-26-59 Page Thirty -Seven DEMANDS APPROVED Motion by Councilman_Heath,. seconded by Councilman Pittenger,'that Dema�fids' in the amount'of $778679073, as shown on Demand Sheets C-169 and C-170, be approved. This total includes fund transfers in the amount of $45,495.57. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Mottinger,.Barnes, Mayor Brown Noes. None Absent: None There being no further business, motion by Councilman Mottinger, seconded by Councilman Pittenger and carried, that the meeting be adjourned at 11:15 P. M. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL As Submitted / With the following corrections: L/ Date Page 14 - The fourth line of Councilman Heath's statement should read "hold firm" regarding their Sign Ordinance, instead of "hold a study" regarding their Sign Ordinance, as indicated. Page 15 - First line, last paragraph - the words "and carried" should be inserted after the words "Motion by Councilman'Hea.th, seconded by Councilman Barnes". Page 25 - The amount of the bid of Bonham and Clauson on Project No. C-102 should be shown as '� `"�,695000" `instead•.:of ;:':$1;495>00", as indicated. Page 26 - The amount of the bid of Hatfield Construction on Project No. C-1Q5 should be shown as 11$561,00" instead of 11$361>0011, as indicated.