CC - 05-28-96i 9 APPROVED
CITY 01, O EMEAD
DATE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING RY
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
MAY 28, 1996
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark
at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard; Rosemead,
California.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tern Imperial
The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Bill Miller of the United Methodist Church
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmembers Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern Clark, and
Mayor Vasquez
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 14, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING
This item was deferred for corrections and will be resubmitted for consideration at the
June 1 1 , 1996 meeting.
PRESENTATIONS:
A proclamation was presented to Lupe Herrera in honor of her many honors and
achievements in parenting and her continuing contributions to the betterment of the
Rosemead community.
A proclamation was presented to Arnie Darrow, of Doughboys, in recognition of their
49 years of business in Rosemead and their continuing commitment to the Rosemead
Chamber of Commerce and other civic activities in the community, and success in their future
endeavors at their new home.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, informed the Council that the Los Angeles
Community College District is trying to establish a lighting and landscape assessment district.
Mr. Nunez requested that copies of his letters from the Alliance Defense Fund regarding
teaching homosexuality in schools and the Concerned Women for America letter regarding the
NEA promotion of Gay and Lesbian Month be distributed to the Council.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of the public hearing was presented
by the City Attorney.
A. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR THE ABILENE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND 1995/96 CDBG
RESURFACING PROJECTS
Frank Tripepi, presented the staff report.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing for those wishing to speak in favor or against
this item.
There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
CC 5-28-96
Page #1
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ
that the Council adopt and approve the Negative Declaration for the Abilene Street
improvements and 1995/96 CDBG Street Resurfacing Projects. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Vasquez, Taylof, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
III. LEGISLATIVE
A. RESOLUTION NO. 96-18 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS
The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $382,139.76
NUMBERED 16555 THROUGH 16700
Councilmember Taylor requested an explanation of Check No. 16571, $1800 to Home
Depot.
Fred Stillions, CDBG Coordinator, responded that the homeowner requested that the
carpeting be installed by Home Depot as a better grade of carpeting could be obtained for the
same amount of money set aside.
Councilmember Taylor requested an explanation of Check No. 16584 to Mobile
Service, for repairs to Unit 14.
Michael Burbank, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that it was for repairs
to the 10 year old dump truck and that the Mobile mechanic came to the City yard to repair
it.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL
that Resolution No. 96-18 be adopted. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 766 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO SOLICITATION OF
EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS OR CONTRIBUTIONS IN CERTAIN AREAS - ADOPT
The following Ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 766
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO SOLICITATION OF
EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS OR CONTRIBUTIONS IN CERTAIN AREAS -
ADOPT
CC 5-28-96
Page lit
0
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked why Ordinance 766 and the following
Resolution 96-19 were brought back to the Council again.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, responded that the foregoing items require two readings.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
that Ordinance No. 766 be adopted. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 96-19 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DENYING THE PUBLIC EATING
ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FOR
DIAMOND RESTAURANT, 9016 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD
(DIAMOND CAFE)
The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
DENYING THE PUBLIC EATING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE AND
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FOR DIAMOND RESTAURANT, 9016
MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD (DIAMOND CAFE)
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL
that the Council adopt Resolution No. 96-19.
Yes:
Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-A EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT FOR SIGNAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES
CC-B REQUEST FOR CROSSING GUARD AT EMERSON SCHOOL -EMERSON PLACE
AND PROSPECT AVENUE
CC-C REQUEST FOR SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR ROSEMEAD HANDYMAN GRANT
PROGRAM - 56TH BID PACKAGE
CC-D APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK
BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT NEW AVENUE AND
NEWMARK AVENUE AND MISSION DRIVE AND ENCINITA AVENUE
CC-E APPROVAL OF 1996 FIREWORKS STAND LOCATIONS
CC-F AWARD OF BID - 1996 FORD CROWN VICTORIA - REPLACEMENT OF UNIT
#2
CC-G APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BENJAMIN MOORE AND
COMPANY V. CITY OF ALHAMBRA
CC 5-28-96
Page #3
•
0
CC-H ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENTS FOR HIGHCLIFF STREET
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
CC-I ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEED FOR STREET PURPOSES - 3846 WALNUT
GROVE AVENUE
CC-J APPROVAL OF EXTENSION TO LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT - MARIPOSA
LANDSCAPE
CC-L AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN LUNCH PROGRAM
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL
that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-K AWARD OF BID - SHOPPER SHUTTLE/DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICES
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated that a shuttle did not have wheel chair
access last week for a handicapped person.
Mr. Nunez was assured that the current shuttles are wheelchair accessible and that the
van may have been a temporary replacement van.
John Helm, Vice-President and Regional Manager of DAVE Transportation Services,
requested that the Mayor and Council reconsider the staff recommendation to award the
contract to the low bidder, Laidlaw Transit. Mr. Helm stated that DAVE Transportation has
provided this service to the City for over 10 years and has consistently provided high quality
and safe and efficient services to the Rosemead residents. Mr. Helm continued that the
difference between Laidlaw and DAVE Transportation's bid was only 5%, with the rest of the
bidders being 10% higher, and questioned if the low bidder can operate these services and
still generate a profit while providing quality service.
Mr. Tripepi, explained that this was a difficult decision to make, and thanked Mr. Helm
and DAVE Transportation for their years of responsive and high quality service to the City.
Mr. Tripepi continued that all references pertaining to Laidlaw have been checked and the staff
recommendation stands.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR
that the Council award bid for Dial-A-Ride and Shopper Shuttle transit services to Laidlaw
Transit Services, Inc., effective July 1, 1996 and authorize the Mayor to execute a contract
pursuant to the bid specifications and the bid submitted by Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc.
Vote resulted:
Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC 5-28-96
Page #4
• •
V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION
A. REQUEST TO DEVELOP TRACT 47192 IN TWO PHASES
Mr. Tripepi presented the staff report.
VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS:
DOLLY LEONG: Good evening, Madam Mayor and all the City Council. My name is Dolly
Leong, I reside at 9554 Ralph Street in Rosemead. I speak before regarding this project which
was brought over to you. All these years that was approved since 1988 we told that they
have problem with the storm drain. We thought this project is not going to go through. But,
since this project is going to go through and when this project was approved in 1988, our
Mayor Clark then, a Planning Commissioner, I was proud of you when you remarked about
the elimination of one lot. That was lot no. 12, but, there was no Second for that, which I
am really very proud of your idea there. But, since this cul-de-sac public street cannot be
extended in any shape for form because of that lot no. 12. My property next door is an "L"
shaped lot - has 26,400 square foot, with a limited frontage 52 x 200 in the front lot, with
a very small home, 965 square foot, with 12' driveway width. According to current
standards, I cannot do anything on my 26,400 square foot lot because of this problem. I
have spent tens of thousands of dollars with architects, engineerings, to integrate with the
proposed plan that was approved recently on tentative Tract 51586, seven homes on the
west, which is now abandoned. I also want to present to the City Council today that I did
talk to staff and also the County, how I can improve my property. I was told since my plan
plot with an existing home is within 200' the Fire Department has no problem with two lot
subdivision there. They can take out the fire, but, regarding the interior lot, the potential of
developing three units, I need an access to whatever the cul-de-sac here with easement
reservation to L.A. County Fire Department for the Condition of Approval so that I can
improve the three homes in the rear lot. The project owner would not lose anything. They
have given L.A. County Flood Control an easement on a storm drain which is 12'. 1 have
confirmed it with the Planning Director, that is mainly on lot no. 13. And that is the only
thing that I need in order that... for alternate access to potentially develop this property.
Otherwise, the City has spent $1 million to improve Graves Avenue, I think the whole street
from San Gabriel over to New Avenue and we have Maryvale Church, Neighborhood Covenant
Church and Branches Christian Ministry right across the street. Otherwise, Mayor Clark, we
aware... we have graffiti over that property year after year. The City spent over $200,000
before just to clean up this graffiti right at the back of our house, this is fronting our rear yard
that is on Highcliff. They won't see it, but we see it at our property. This is...we have been
advised by the Planning Director ...I called the project owners, Bill Lau and asked him,
requesting him, appealing him, to meet only once. But, he told me to call Mr. Sian. Another
partner told me that they have other partners in Taiwan, so I need the Council to give them
a little time to talk to their partners in Taiwan. Otherwise my property would be sitting
forever. In addition to that, before this project was approved, another project was proposed
to the City Council. Part of this project 7701-17 Graves Avenue, my lot, the rear lot, and also
7627, altogether totalling to two acres. At that time, September 28, 1988, this project was
only approved half of the density of this project owner. Out of that 41,000 square foot lot
that they approved, almost ten homes now was only approved five homes. I think that the
Engineer of that project was very aware of both the project over there, including my property.
My property was in and out of escrow by these property, by these important players of this
project, Engineer and probably owner on the west. I just to show before you, Madam Mayor
and City Council, the storm drain easement, realignment of the storm drain was part of the
Condition of Approval according to the City Engineer's report. As to today, there is no
grading plan, either at the Building Department nor at the City Engineer's office. This is
the grading plan for realignment of the storm drain going down stream. Now the storm drain
realignment was moved upstream towards the cul-de-sac public street. And, that will make
it adverse effect on my property because of the property ...the flow of this storm drain is high
stream from Jackson, Highcliff towards this property instead of coming as proposed
downstream, we are going up. That's why they are going towards to need a flood gate, they
said, in case this water is going to flow back towards that way that is directly at my property,
and that did not come back to the Planning Commission nor the City Council to approve this
project - which I did not know how did this happen and up to now there is no kind of grading
plan at the Building Department nor at the City ...at the Engineering Department. We do not
CC 5-28-96
Page #5
• 0
want to hold up this project. All they have to give me is an easement... to the L.A. County
Fire Department, for an access of the existing storm drain 12' instead of the block wall in
between, I mean the masonry wall, between my property line. All the L.A. County Fire
Department needs is a gate of 12' wrought iron gate where their plan is to have that
contribute right here. This is the easement that is all is needed if I may start my....
COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. I have a question, Mrs. Leong. You're saying
that on this new storm drain.
LEONG: Yes.
BRUESCH: The easement is 12', right.
LEONG: It's given to the L:A. County Flood Control.
BRUESCH: OK. You're asking to make that a 13'...
LEONG: No, just 12'...
BRUESCH: 12' street?
LEONG: No, no, just an easement for the L.A. County Fire Department. They said they can
park their car right there, Councilmember Bruesch, there the cul-de-sac is. All they need is
to park the fire truck at the cul-de-sac and take care ...in case there's a fire on the proposed
three units.
BRUESCH: So, you're not saying you want a street in there.
LEONG: No. Just an easement for L.A. County Fire Department for the access right. And,
L.A. County Fire Control said they have no problem with it, all I have to do is apply for a
permit, but the consent of the owner may be required. And that is why I come before you
to put that condition in because no future access for extension of the cul-de-sac public street
was provided at the time the project was approved.
BRUESCH: So, it is a fire access easement
LEONG: Correct.
BRUESCH: I've never heard of that. Is there such a thing?
PETER LYONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: If there are...we'll still have to see a project proposal
and it will have to meet our development standards. I, quite frankly, have not seen any plans
for her project to see how this fire access easement would help her project whatsoever.
MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL: Madam Mayor.
BRUESCH: I just feel that when you're talking about fire access, we always, in the past, and
stop me if I'm wrong, that always meant a fire lane or a fire something. They won't just take
an easement, they have to have some paved area.
LEONG: Councilman Bruesch. I already went to talk to one Fire Chief in San Gabriel.
Because of the special circumstances and the hardship and because of this public cul-de-sac
street next to it, just one lot away... but, it was too bad at that time, nobody Seconded our
Mayor Clark's recommendation to eliminate this lot. That is the problem. You cannot extend
this public cul-de-sac here and I cannot gain any access. The Fire Department said it's OK
because this front is less than 200'. All they need is just an in and out, the ingress and
egress of access right. All the existing storm drain easement through the L.A. County Flood
Control, which they have no problem, that I can apply for a permit. Instead of a block wall,
all they need is a wrought iron gate with a lock box on it.
ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: What you are really saying is you need a portion of their
property...
CC 5-28-96
Page #6
•
LEONG: No.
KRESS: You're not able to negotiate with them?
LEONG: City Attorney Kress. There is an existing storm drain that the owner already granted
to the L.A. County Flood Control.
KRESS: Right. But, you need it for fire access so you can build your project, and they
haven't agreed to it.
LEONG: Instead of a block wall ...instead of a block wall here, all they need ...they already
have something here open if you look at the drain plan. If you do not have it, I will be very
happy to....
KRESS: My advice to the Council is that the only question on the Agenda this evening is
whether or not this project is going to be allowed to be developed in phases. When you have
a request that it allowed to be developed in phases due to lending and funding considerations,
to be honest, you have adjoining property owners here who could agree that it is in
everyone's interest to allow this easement, but it is not an Agenda item and it's not
something that at this point in time, I think the Council has a jurisdiction to mandate.
LEONG: Mr. Kress. If I may. According to the grading plan copy that I have, the storm drain
alignment is not quite approved on the final map. There is the file of the grading plan in 1988.
It was supposed to go downstream, now it goes upstream. I wish you would look at that and
that is the major change in plans... approved plans. There should be modification fees to be
paid and modification of approved plans, notices to be sent out so that there would be more
property owners that adversity affecting their rights ...maybe human lives.
BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. I have a question. I seem to remember about a year and a half
ago when the issue of this landlocked property was in front of us. Mr. Lyons, maybe you can
fill it in. Wasn't an easement offered to Ms. Leong ...a fire lane easement offered to Ms.
Leong when she was...
LYONS: To the best of knowledge, no, not last year. These developers have dealt with Ms.
Leong for years and years and years. Unfortunately, it appears that they have not been able
to come together.
LEONG: Which developer....
BRUESCH: There was something about a street...
LYONS: Last year we extended the undertaking agreement that we had for the public
improvements, one additional year.
MAYOR CLARK: Mr. Bruesch. I think what you were referring to was the project that was
in the works with Ms. Leong...
BRUESCH: They were negotiating for access to the back lots.
CLARK: Apparently that fell through.
BRUESCH: It fell through even though the fire lane would have been there.
LEONG: Councilmember Bruesch. That is another project, they abandoned it on the west.
That was Benson Wu, this is Bill Lau and Richard Sien.
CLARK: Ms. Leong, if I may. This has been in the works for many years and you have had
plenty of time to work with the developer. Now what is on our Agenda tonight...
LEONG: We told that this is not going to go through because of the storm drain. That is the
information we were informed. Mayor Clark, according to the approved plans, and City
Engineer's terms and conditions was not complied. To my knowledge, if there is a change
CC 5-28-96
Page #7
in anything, I have to pay...
CLARK: You brought this up two weeks ago and we extended it so that you would have time
to work this out.
LEONG: I did. But, they told me they have some partner in Taiwan...
CLARK: All we are doing tonight, is approving, if we do approve it, is a two-stage
development of the property and as a matter of fact, the properties that will be developed
under that plan are merely 1 through 7 and 17 through 23. So, that the cul-de-sac, while it
will be developed, it will not have the houses around it until later. You'll have plenty of time
to negotiate with the developer as far as what you want done over here. But what we are
approving tonight is a two phased sale of this property. That's all we can do because this is
what is on the Agenda. We cannot mandate something that is not on our Agenda, it's a
violation of the Brown Act. I would entertain a motion one way or another on this... but,
before that. Juan, did you...?
NUNEZ: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. Point of information on this item. About six or
eight months ago, did we rescind something involved with this project?
BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. That's what I was referring to. The developer of the other piece
of property, because of this access problem, gave up. You're right Ms. Leong. They said we
can't develop this property.
LYONS: No. I don't know what project that was, but...
KRESS: I think he's talking about Benson Wu. We brought that back for rezoning because
it simply wasn't developed per that property.
LYONS: The other project, Benson Wu's on the other side of Dolly's property, pretty much
expired. What we did was down zone it back to its original zone. Robert's correct. We
rescinded the zone change from PD back to R-2 because the project died.
TAYLOR: OK. That was the one. Thank you.
CLARK: Mr. Nunez.
NUNEZ: My name is Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar. I met with Fred Wickman, Peter Lyons, and
Councilwoman Margaret Clark, at the site. My concern is for the grades that are going to be
on that property and I wasn't sure that the properties to the west would not get flooded.
That's one of my concerns. The water that runs, and I don't mean the water that runs
already in the pipe, I mean the water that runs above ground has to go into some catch basin
and I wasn't sure that these catch basins are going to be installed at the end of the project
will take care of that run off. I just hope that it is. I don't want to come here, probably when
we have a rain like we had in 1993,1 believe it was - or at that time we had quite a bit of rain
and find out that the Engineering Department of whoever, placed a catch basin in the wrong
place. As I have also spoken before on the catch basin that is on Highcliff, I have been
assured by Mr. Wickman that the catch basin is in the right place. Yet, the people at...Mr.
Murietta, you remember, I don't recall the address, the first property on the south side of
Highcliff and west side of the barricade, always gets flooded before this water gets into the
catch basin.
IMPERIAL: Mr. Nunez. Point of information. Were you out at the site, Sir?
NUNEZ: Yes.
IMPERIAL: Did you walk the site?
CLARK: Yes. We spent an hour trekking all over the whole place this afternoon.
CC 5-28-96
Page #8
® •
IMPERIAL: Did you get any assurances on what you were asking, any answers to your
questions?
NUNEZ: Well, no. What I'm asking that I hope that they...
IMPERIAL: Did you ask those questions then?
NUNEZ: Yes.
IMPERIAL: And, what were the answers?
NUNEZ: Well, they assured me that they would take care of that.
IMPERIAL: I don't get the point then. What is this all about? Do we trust the City and the
staff or what. I don't understand this.
NUNEZ: Well, as I said just now, that sometimes the engineering can be wrong. Because of
the property on Highcliff, although Mr. Wickman tells me at the low point ...you may be at the
low point, the water that's going from the east, but not the water that's going from the west.
IMPERIAL: And, I assure you if the wrong information is given out, Mr. Nunez, you'll probably
talk to some different people the next time you come back. Thank you very much.
NUNEZ: I'll come back. Also, a concern that I have is on the maintenance of this catch
basin. On the plans here is says that CB, catch basin, I guess it is, and connector pipe, not
to be maintained by the L.A. County. Is that the connector pipe that goes from the catch
basin to the main 54" line? Who's going to maintain that?
CLARK: We talked about that this afternoon. Before I allow the motion I was going to, and
I will at this time, request that Lot 13, which does have the catch basin on it, have the
property owner be required to maintain the catch basin. That should be in the Deed and the
realtor should make that person aware. And, until that lot is developed, which it will not be
until the second phase, then that would be Mr. Lau's responsibility. So, I want that made
very clear. That should take care of it. As far as 5:30 p.m. today, Juan, you were satisfied
with everything that we had talked about.
NUNEZ: I just want it on the record.
CLARK: OK. That's what we are doing. We're going to make it a covenant that that be
maintained.
NUNEZ: If it can be verbatim.
TRIPEPI: It's a covenant. We'll record it as a covenant, Mr. Nunez.
NUNEZ: Covenant. Also, the property owner that buys that lot is fully aware...
CLARK: That's what I just said.
NUNEZ: They will not only be cleaning the top of the catch basin, he also will have to be
maintaining, I don't know how many feet it will be from the catch basin to the main 54"...
BRUESCH: Mr. Nunez, I have one on my piece of property and it's written right into my Deed.
That is my responsibility to keep it clean. When I see that it starts to backup I go down there
with a trowel and clean it out.
TAYLOR: Madam Mayor.
NUNEZ: I know that, but if that pipe should ever rupture or something from the catch basin
to the main line, the 54" pipe, the person that's going to buy that lot may not be aware of all
the...
CC 5-28-96
Page #9
• 0
TAYLOR: I'm puzzled now. We're getting into the storm drain. This is an inlet to that main
storm drain.
NUNEZ: As I understand, according to this.
TAYLOR: Do these lots, 12 and 13, drain to the cul-de-sac?
WICKMAN: Yes.
TAYLOR: What would possess anybody to put the liability onto a single home owner, that
he's responsible for cleaning a major subdrain? Now clarify this for me. Is that what we're
saying? We're going to put an inlet to a major storm drain system and require Lot 13 to be
responsible for cleaning it? True or not true? I never heard of anything so ridiculous in 35
years. This is a major storm drain, this isn't a drain in a yard. Excuse me, Juan. What is the
deal?
WICKMAN: The catch basin that is located on Lot 13 is connected to a 24" pipe which runs
into the main 51 " line. Lot 13 is the lot that is being filled up that is obstructing the natural
flow of the existing ditch through there. So, it would be that property's responsibility, either
to not obstruct the drainage or to accept the drainage.
TAYLOR: OK. Are you saying that only Lot 13 drains to that catch basin.
WICKMAN: Lot 13 does not drain to that catch basin.
TAYLOR: Then why does Lot 13 have the responsibility for it?
WICKMAN: By creating Lot 13, the developer is filling up the existing drainage ditch, not the
storm drain. There is also a drainage ditch that follows over the storm drain system that
carries some surface water, and Lot 13 is blocking that.
TAYLOR: SO, you obstructing the natural flow of the water and that burden is now onto Lot
13.
WICKMAN: That's correct.
BRUESCH: Point of information. You're talking about two different things. Isn't there going
to be an underground storm drain connector there also. It says new storm drain right here.
LYONS: There are two things here. The storm drain that is there right now goes under
Graves. That catch basin simply catches some of the runoff slightly uphill from...
BRUESCH: So, all we're talking about is that drainage ditch runoff.
WICKMAN: Correct.
BRUESCH: It's very minor. It's not going to be...it's just like mine. I have three properties
that go in to mine. Once every other year I have to get in there and clean it out.
WICKMAN: Yes. They have no responsibility whatsoever to clean out the 51" main storm
drain.
BRUESCH: No. No. No.
WICKMAN: That is still the responsibility of L.A. County. This is strictly the little catch
basin...
BRUESCH: What is the catch basin? Mine is about this big.
WICKMAN: I'm guessing it's probably 24" x 24".
BRUESCH: Yes. It's about 24" x 24".
CC 5-28-96
Page #10
lllh~
•
IMPERIAL: Madam Mayor. I don't understand this conversation. Mr. Nunez called up earlier
today. We sent staff out with yourself, including the City Manager, if I can recall, to answer
his questions. Now we're in here asking the same questions again, after he's been assured.
Now, what do you want, a letter of Covenant, Juan, or what?
NUNEZ: I want to know how much is the financial price, because it says here the County will
not maintain the financial part.
WICKMAN: The connector pipe is 7' long.
NUNEZ: 7' long. So, if anything goes wrong with that connecting pipe, then the owner of
Lot 13 will have to take care of that.
BRUESCH: Rotor it out.
IMPERIAL: They even told me I had to take care of my sewer when I bought my house.
BRUESCH: Juan, the point is is that connector pipe is not going to get clogged if you do the
maintenance each year or every other year. I have to do it and it's no big deal. Mine isn't
quite as big, I agree. Mine is only about 18". But, it still is a responsibility that I have to take.
I have to clean it out every once in a while.
NUNEZ: OK.
IMPERIAL: If Mr. Nunez has any more questions, I be happy if you would direct staff to
answer those questions after this meeting.
CLARK: OK. We need a motion.
BRUESCH: So move.
TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. Is there a second on this item? Another question on this. The Lots
24-31, why do those lots have to have an 11' backyard for a two story, I don't know how
many bedrooms these are going to be, and the adjoining backyards there are 20'. Why can't
that be split some way? And, we talked about making larger backyards. There is a straight
line all the way through. Is there a reason why that can't be split somehow...1 5' x 16', take
4' on to the 11', make it 15' and the others would be 16'. Why are they so small.
LYONS: Unfortunately I wasn't here when the project was approved. But, my guess is they
were trying to maintain lot sizes that were around 5000 to 4500 square feet and also
maintain a rectangular lot so you can get a buildable home in there with some setback. I think
what they have done is provide 20' setbacks throughout most of the lots, but unfortunately
the lots that front on Graves don't have quite the rear setback.
TAYLOR: One third of them have 10' or less...
LYONS: Again, as you well know, this was approved through the PD and has the smaller rear
setbacks. The Architect is here, he was around when the project was approved.
TAYLOR: I'd just like to know the end result. When you're in one house everything is the
same. You look out one window, you've got 11' backyard. You look out the neighboring
house right in back of you, and they have a 20' backyard.
EDMOND CHENG: Good evening. My name is Edmond Cheng, C-H-E-N-G, I'm the Architect
of the project. When we first submitted the project, that was when the other Planner was
here. We tried, like Peter said earlier, we tried to maintain the square footage of each lot.
In fact, those units or those lots that face Graves Avenue, even though they don't have a
huge backyard; however, they do have a pretty good sized sideyard. When we do the design,
we try to calculate in a different way. From the building to building, no matter how we push
the lot line, it is still going to be the same, because from building to building, that's where it
counts. So, I don't think really, even it seems to be 11' or something kind of tight; however,
it will be quite far away from the building facing the other side of the street. I don't know if
CC 5-28-96
Page #11
• •
I answered your question.
TAYLOR: No. We had adopted a policy of trying to have at least 20' backyards for these
homes.
CHENG: I understand that.
TAYLOR: We have 31' between them. The net result, when you're looking from one house
to the other, one has almost twice as much - 11' compared to 20'. The end result is the
house is still sitting there, you have the side setback, but it's ...one reason I won't vote for it
because we've tried to have a policy of building these big homes and no larger backyards.
Just my opinion on it.
CHENG: I promise my next project will be 20' and 20'. Because this was approved, in fact,
the final map has already been recorded.
TAYLOR: I understand.
CLARK: We have a motion on the floor, did I hear a second?
IMPERIAL: So move.
NUNEZ: Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar. You can make a condition on the paint that is going to
be used on those homes that you mentioned earlier in the Redevelopment Meeting about the
paint that had been used at New and Hellman.
CLARK: I think this will be different. The concern we have is the streaking on some the new
projects that are going in the City. Apparently they don't have the overhangs to prevent the
minerals in the water from staining. That is my concern. But, I believe you would take care
of that on the stucco or the drainage. The other thing that I did want to mention is that we
want to be sure that the undeveloped lots along Graves are maintained at all times - so that
they are nice to look at and not weeds just because they are not developed.
BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. Especially with the watering of the dust. We're under new
provisions with the AQMD about PM 10 dust particles, and I'm concerned that on dry hot dry
days when we get the "Santa Ana" winds with that dust blowing in our face.
CLARK: We have a motion. Did I hear a second?
IMPERIAL: Yes, I seconded it.
CLARK: We have a motion and a second to approve the development in two phases. Please
vote.
Vote taken from voting slip:
Yes:
Vasquez, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
Taylor
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
TAYLOR: I would like the record to show my No vote is for the sizes of the backyards and
also the storm drain problem. I would like this item in the Minutes verbatim.
VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS.
CC 5-28-96
Page #12
V. STATUS REPORTS - None
VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS
A. STATUS OF SOCCER GOALS AT ZAPOPAN PARK
No action required on this item.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further action at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
The next regular meeting will be held on June 11, 1996, at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
MAYOR
CC 5-28-96
Page #13