Loading...
CC - 03-23-93• i APPROVED CITY OF ROSENIEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE Z_- ~3 ~ ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL 13Y MARCH 23, 1993 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 8:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Bill Miller of the United Methodist Church. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen McDonald, Taylor, Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Clark Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 9, 1993 - REGULAR MEETING Councilman Taylor asked that the last sentence on Page 1 be amended to read "...and the dog wasn't picked up until 5:15 on Monday after I called you at 4:15 on Monday cause I..." and that the letter of explanation from the Animal Control be included. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 9, 1993, be approved as amended. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: The Council presented a Proclamation naming the week of April 5-11, 1993, as "PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK" to Mr. Ronald Taws representing the County Department of Public Health Services. A second proclamation was presented declaring the month of April, 1993, as "ALCOHOL AWARENESS MONTH." I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 731 REGARDING A REQUEST FROM DOLLY C. LEONG, STANLEY S. LEONG, AND DAW H. SHWE TO CONSTRUCT NINE (9) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A .94 ACRE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 8445-8463 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD (ZC 93-193) The Mayor opened the public hearing. Lawrence Speight, 9101 E. Slauson, Pico Rivera, and representing the applicant; presented additional information regarding this request, explained that the applicants will be living on the property; summarized the project; stressed the support of the surrounding neighbors; noted the amount of investment that is being made; and asked approval of this project. Speaking in favor of this project were: CC 3-23-93 Page #1 Mrs. John Maris, 4716 N. Earle Avenue; Rose Hager, 4716 N. Willard; Jack Furin, 4733 N. Willard; Jesus Rivera, 8402 Mission Drive; and Carlo Maurizio, 4722 Willard. Speaking in favor but with some reservations was Johnnie Matsdorf, 4833 N. Willard. Claudia Zelaya, 4647 Earle and Janice Dooley, 4647 Earle were opposed to this project. Some of their concerns included overcrowding of infrastructure, increased smog and density of population, higher crime and size and price of the proposed homes. The applicant spoke in rebuttal and there being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 731 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 TO P.D. AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8445-63 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD (ZC 93-193 AND GPA 93-1) VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: CLARK: Are there any questions from the Council for Mr... TAYLOR: You made reference to an investment of $1.2 million for the project. SPEIGHT: Yes. TAYLOR: What's the selling price going to be on those homes? SPEIGHT: $250,000 or under. TAYLOR: Or under. So, you've got $2.25 million selling price for nine of them. SPEIGHT: Yes, but it does not account for the current basis in the land of course. That is an increased investment over today. TAYLOR: One of the questions or statements that was raised about the City allowing that property to deteriorate to that level, to inform the public here that that property has been in the Rehabilitation Board as far as this Council sits as that Board, for the past couple of years, to get some of that cleaned up. So, the City has been working on it, it's just sometimes the legal maneuvers that are going through to avoid some of that and as the comment was made, there was a proposal to put 15 homes or whatever it was, which that was the first goal and that wasn't acceptable. We wouldn't go along with that. So, the City has been trying to do something to get it cleaned up and unfortunately it's taken this long. Now, we're down to this zone change and we'll just have to see how we work it out. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. I have a point of information and a question of the developer. I'll ask my question to you and this is also a request to staff. On each of those lots we have a FAR. I haven't been able to find in the packet the FAR for each lot. Is that ever listed? PETER LYONS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: If I may, Madam Mayor. All nine lots meet the Floor-Area Ratio (FAR). The FAR being 45%. They vary from 40% up to 42%. So, all nine homes meet the FAR of 45% and that's the amount of living area, first floor and second floor, relative to the size of the lot. CC 3-23-93 Page #2 BRUESCH: I'm bringing this up for two reasons. First of all, the City Council has done a very good job of making sure that any type of development will have adequate open space. 42% coverage means that the two floors together make up less than 50% of the property. I would like for when we have these multiple unit developments before us, I would like to have an FAR for each lot so we can have that information if that's possible. Okay, that was my question. Point of information. In terms of housing the County of Los Angeles and the State are developing housing projections for all communities in southern California. Housing plans, jobs-housing. Balance. We don't want to see that come. We're fighting it. However, it may be a fact of life very soon. That fact of life may be that there is going to be a super government that demands from our City that we provide "X" number of houses for the people that need them. Some of the scenarios that they're giving us are commercial and residential developments where you have a store downstairs and apartments upstairs. Multiple housing in R-2, R-3 zones. I mean, multiple, 15-20 homes. What this City Council has tried to do is to enhance the housing stock without going to some of these bizarre ways that some planners are suggesting that we go to provide the future needs in housing. The idea is that there will be people that need housing, therefore, cities will provide housing for them. I for one do not want a super government coming in here and telling Rosemead how to provide housing for the people. I'd much rather a process like we're doing tonight and coming up with the best way of improving the housing in the neighborhood. CLARK: Is there anyone else that wants to ask. I would like to make a comment in response to Mrs. Dooley's and Mrs. Zelaya..? Yes, I was on the Planning Commission when that zone change was made and I wanted to clarify...I don't know who made the comment about the hotel that was proposed for Mission and I think that was a very irresponsible comment because I don't think it would have passed but the fact of the matter is that if Mrs. Leong had come in and asked for what she could have built before we made the zone change, she had mostly R-3 property there, and she could have 27 units on this very parcel. So, rezoning it down to R-1, I feel this is somewhat of a compromise in the sense of her property being developable. However, I have to agree with you on the matter that the property that exists now has not been maintained in proper condition and it's been a headache for the City. We've been many times in the Rehab process and making comments about cleaning it up and there's many times when there were things that, just trash and debris there that a child could pick up and this irritates me and I want notice served that if this Council does approve this project that the property will be maintained and will not be allowed to deteriorate in the condition that it has been and it puts on notice that if the owner has not maintained the property that exists now, what guarantee do we have that the new properties will be maintained. So, I have to agree with the concerns of the residents there and I hope that this will serve notice that this is very important to us. Even if it's new, a new development can deteriorate very fast if it is not maintained and that's what I have to say. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. I want to reiterate what you have just said. I'm a little bit frustrated with the fact that the movement toward cleaning up this property has been so slow. So many times we've been blocked by letters and requests and delays. This has been before us six or seven times and it seems like every time we start progressing we take two steps back and I want direct to staff, should this pass, that when it comes up to having your set of requirements, that one requirement be added that if these houses are not immediately sold, that any vacant property would be boarded and maintained in a clean, weed-free state so that they would not become eyesores. So, I'd like that requirement to be added to the list of future conditions. CLARK: Are there any other comments? McDONALD: Yes, I'd like to make a few comments. I think it's kind of humorous that the proponents get up here and say they're interested in the welfare of the City of Rosemead and the kids and so forth and so on when they kept that property in that state of disarray for year CC 3-23-93 Page #3 McDONALD CONTINUES: after year. It's kind of interesting to say that they're on one hand they're interested in the welfare by putting new houses in the community and I think if anybody in here believes that a developer is looking at the welfare of the community in putting houses in any community has got to think again because they're just thinking of the bottom line, of course and the investment. But in this case, I'm in favor of the project because of the same things that the neighbors are saying. It's nice to live where you're proud of your community and you have neighbors that take care of their properties and there's new houses here and because they're going to be independently owned and that's one thing that the City Council has fought for in the last four or five years, is we would rather put in a planned unit development which has a little bit of association land so that people can own those houses individually. I also have to agree with all the things that Mrs. Dooley said. There isn't any of us that haven't said God it's too smoggy here, right? The traffic is a killer, all right. We're having to pay more taxes to send kids to school. So, there's not anybody in this room that hasn't at one time or another said that. But we up here are the representatives of the community. Here's a neighborhood that wants that beautification project going in because putting new houses there is going to make that a beautiful area there and it's independently owned and Mrs. Dooley, the reason that they're doing that is because the property costs so much more now a days that what we're doing is saying you can have this piece of property and build these houses on it so they can be affordable. If you put four or five houses back on that people couldn't afford to buy them for the investment that has to be put in there by the developer. So, I agree with the neighbors. I think it's a good project. I think they'll be pleased with it and the houses just Like office space are eventually going to be filled. There's some-vacancies now, maybe they're asking too much but down the road here those houses will be filled and we'll have families in them and sure they're probably going to have kids that go to the school but there's people that paid for my education as I was a youngster. I know my family didn't pay all of it in their taxes but these folks, you just have to agree that you take a little bit from the community, you have to give a little bit back to the community and I think for those reasons alone and having new houses in your neighborhood is a good feeling. It makes your property that much more attractive when the time comes that you want to sell it and the homes for a lot of people are their investment for their lifetimes. So, for all of that I would make the motion to approve the project as is. TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. I'd like some information from Mr. Lyons before we vote on this item. I talked to him briefly before the meeting and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Lyons. The front yard setback on an R-1 is 25 feet? LYONS: That's correct. TAYLOR: And these are 20 feet. LYONS: That's correct. TAYLOR: In the R-2. In the R-1 the backyard requirement is what? LYONS: In the rear yard of the R-1 is 25 feet. TAYLOR: Okay. Now what is the footage requirement for additional bedrooms. We had had some action about a year ago requiring the number of bedrooms we would have to have a larger backyard. Can you refresh us? LYONS: Yeah. If I may. Well over a year ago we established the FAR standard. In addition to that we added a second story setback requirement of ten feet which is five feet more than the five feet for the first floor and in addition to that we added a requirement that homes that have five bedrooms and are over 2,000 square feet will have a 35-foot rear setback. These homes are not of that size and therefore do not require that 35-foot setback. Those are the added items we included well over a year and a half ago. CC 3-23-93 Page #4 • • TAYLOR: I don't recall the specifics but I didn't recall it being over five bedrooms. There was some inclusion about family rooms or dens being included in that figure. Is that correct? LYONS: Well, we kept it at bedrooms. My staff and I look very closely at floor plans and I will let you know that every floor plan in this project will be reviewed and it is presented in the plans there, any room that looks as if it's convertible to a bedroom in any form whatsoever we will call a bedroom but we require a den, if a den is proposed or a living room, to have no private bathroom, to have no privacy there, that is that it really just have three walls not four and so we truly look at the plans and make sure that these are four bedroom not four, five bedroom homes hidden. TAYLOR: Is the square footage for the R-1 property, is that a 6,000 square foot lot? LYONS: That's correct. This is really to an R-2 standard. The R-2 standards require a 20-foot front yard which this project does adhere to. It also adheres to the five-foot first story and the 10-foot second story side setbacks. It adheres to the requirement of the FAR. And generally what we wanted was a project that meets the R-2 standards, that's detached, that has the open space similar to that of the neighboring area and that has a circulation that's safe to Mission and also preserve the existing oak trees. TAYLOR: I think under the circumstances, the way that this particular project has been handled, not from the staff's standpoint, I think you've worked very well trying to get a solution to it but I recall when.we downzoned these properties from R-3, R-2 to basically R-1, there were many people in this audience that protested that we were downzoning or downvaluing the property. In this particular case now we're back with the same condition of well, we'll put this project through under a P-D so we don't have to follow the R-1 requirements. If you'll look on that map over there the landscape, the green section area when the houses are back to back, look at the ratio of the size of those homes and split the backyards in half for 15 feet. That 15 feet isn't even as long as that wall over there which is probably about 17 feet long. And we went through a lot of effort, the Planning Commission, that we were going to require minimum backyard requirement. It doesn't meet the R-1 front yard, it doesn't meet the R-1 backyard setbacks, it doesn't meet the square footage for the lots. The three houses on the right side there on Willard Avenue, those are 4,000 square foot lots. An R-1 lot would normally be 6,000 square feet. So, we downzoned throughout the City many areas to make them R-1 and I don't think it's appropriate and I intend to vote no only on the sizing of the lots. I'm sure everyone wants to see a new project but many of these people are endorsing it almost out of despair because we want the mess cleaned up and it's going to look nice and they're willing to trade off. I don't think they're fully aware of the standards that were set city-wide and I don't criticize them for that. I would want a new project there to cleanup the mess also and I'd be willing to compromise but the reason I'm voting no on it is because we've applied city-wide standards and this is circumventing what the intent was. So, I intend to vote no for that reason. VASQUEZ: Madam Mayor. I'd like to second the motion of Dennis McDonald and I think every situation is different and has to be handled differently. CLARK: I'd like to say that having been on the Planning Commission, the Planned Development - P-D zone is a special case where if a property owner if has enough land they can apply and the City has more scrutiny on what they're allowed to put in. So, it is a little bit different. If there are no more comments, it's been moved and seconded to approve the staff recommendation of nine homes. Please vote. CC 3-23-93 Page #5 • Taken from voting slip: Yes: Bruesch, Clark, No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None Vasquez, McDonald TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. I'd like my comment in the minutes verbatim as far as why I voted no on this item. BRUESCH: I would like all of our comments, the Council comments verbatim in the minutes, please. Note: The effect of the motion was that Ordinance No. 731 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Mr. Taylor's no vote did not reflect his desire to have the Ordinance read in full. END OF VERBATIM DIALOGUE A five-minute recess was called at this time and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. The following item was taken out of order in deference to those in the audience. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION B. TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT RAMONA BOULEVARD AND BURTON AVENUE 1. William Darnold, 3339 Burton Avenue, stated that this was a dangerous intersection, that there is fast, heavy traffic and stop signs are needed. 2. Pamela Darnold, 3339 Burton Avenue, stated the preference for a stop sign at this location. 3. Elvia Pascuiti, 8634 E. Ramona, stated that a stop sign would prevent her entering and leaving her driveway and would obstruct the same for the store at the corner. Ms. Pascuiti was opposed to a stop sign and added the opinion that such would cause accidents. 4. Jay Imperial, 9039 Newby, stated that this intersection is a dangerous situation and that the cost of $40,000 for realignment is excessive compared to the cost of two stop signs. After some discussion, it was MOVED BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that the Council approve the installation of a 3-way stop at the intersection of Burton Avenue and Ramona Boulevard with the appropriate "STOP AHEAD" and "SLOW TO 15 MPH" signs as a warning to drivers. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested selective enforcement by the Sheriff's Department for the next several weeks following installation of these signs. III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 93-17 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: CC 3-23-93 Page #6 • RESOLUTION NO. 93-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $288,097.62 NUMBERED 5425 THROUGH 5547 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 93-17 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested a memo explaining Check No. 5441, in the amount of $785.61. B. RESOLUTION NO. 93-18 - TRANSFER OF ZAPOPAN STORM DRAIN TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER DRAIN 1304 - ZAPOPAN STORM DRAIN IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Resolution No. 93-18 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. RESOLUTION NO. 93-19 - APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDS TO REPAIR RAINSTORM DAMAGE TO CITY HALL The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING A DESIGNATION OF APPLICANTS AGENT RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING CERTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER P.L. 93-288 AS AMENDED BY THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1988 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that Resolution No. 93-19 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 3-23-93 Page #7 • D. RESOLUTION NO. 93-20 - ADOPTING A CONGESTION MANAGEMENT LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD IMPLEMENTING A CONGESTION MANAGEMENT LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Resolution No. 93-20 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. ORDINANCE NO. 730 - PROHIBITING VIDEOTAPING AT POLLING PLACES - INTRODUCE The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 730 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD PROHIBITING FILMING, VIDEOTAPING AND PHOTOGRAPHY WITHIN A MUNICIPAL ELECTION POLLING PLACE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Ordinance No. 730 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. F. ORDINANCE NO. 732 - RELATING TO SALE, POSSESSION AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT AND DYE CONTAINERS, CERTAIN WRITING INSTRUMENTS AND GLASS ETCHING TOOLS - INTRODUCE The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 732 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SALE, POSSESSION AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT AND DYE CONTAINERS, CERTAIN WRITING INSTRUMENTS AND GLASS ETCHING TOOLS BY ANY BUSINESS OR ESTABLISHMENT OFFERING SAID CONTAINERS FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Ordinance No. 732 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 3-23-93 Page #8 0 G_ RESOLUTION NO. 93-21 - ONE-HALF CENT SALES TAX 0 THE EXTENSION OF THE The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUPPORTING AN EXTENSION OF THE 1/2 CENT SALES TAX Mayor Clark asked that a paragraph be added after the fourth paragraph reading "WHEREAS, the Rosemead City Council opposes this shifting of the tax burden from the State level to the local level." MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM that Resolution No. 93-21 be adopted as amended. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor stated that the State is now intimidating the Council to support this or be penalized by State cuts in local funding. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-A, CC-G AND CC-H REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY MARIA CRUZ CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY MONICA CRUZ CC-D AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGARDING GUSTAVO PALACIOS CC-E APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEER BIDS FOR THE DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2542 KELBURN AVENUE CC-F RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR BRIGHTON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 93-01 TO E.C. CONSTRUCTION $135,801.00 CC-I AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND 34th ANNUAL CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES SEMINAR IN PALM SPRINGS, MAY 20-23, 1993 CC-J AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND ANNUAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PLANNING CONFERENCE IN OXNARD, APRIL 29-MAY 1, 1993 CC-R SOUTHBOUND U-TURNS AT DEL MAR AND HF.I.7.MAN AVENUES AND SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD AT AELLMAN AVENUE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 3-23-93 Page #9 0 • CC-A DISCONTINUANCE OF DECLARED WATER SHORTAGE AND CONSERVATION MEASURES Councilman Taylor requested that the ordinance be kept intact for future use. Mr. Taylor also requested that staff investigate what will happen to'the credits that had been given by some of the water companies to consumers who conserved. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that the Council rescind the Declaration of a Phase II water shortage. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-G APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 21645, 7740 E. GARVEY AVENUE Mayor Clark asked about the plan for the property and Planning Director Lyons responded that an office building was constructed. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch expressed concerns that the building was still vacant and requested a memo regarding why it was vacant. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that the Council approve Parcel Map No. 21645; accept the street, highways and public ways as offered for dedication on said map; and direct the City Clerk to arrange for the recordation of the map. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-H APPROVAL OF BILLIARD ROOM PERMIT FOR GARVEY BILLIARDS, 8968 GARVEY AVENUE, SUITE F Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch noted that the City had had problems with a billiard hall in this location in the past; was concerned with crime and loitering in the area and stated his intention to vote no on this item. Councilman Taylor asked for a report on the current billiard halls' and any problems with them. After some discussion, it was MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR to defer this item for further information. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, McDonald No: Vasquez Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Vasquez stated that he voted no because if the trouble had occurred four or five years ago, then the Council was just chasing ghosts. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. DISCUSSION OF LICENSE SUSPENSION HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FOR CHARMING RTV, 7940 GARVEY AVENUE, 1106 This item was deferred to the next regular meeting. CC 3-23-93 Page #10 B. TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT RAMONA BOULEVARD AND BURTON AVENUE This item was handled at the beginning of the meeting. VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER BEEZLEY FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that Mr. Beezley be reappointed to the Traffic Commission. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. TAYLOR 1. Asked for a memo regarding the City's policy on holding parents responsible for their children's graffiti activities. C. MAYOR PRO TEN BRUESCH 1. Invited all to attend the next Rosemead YES meeting on April 1, 1993, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. in memory of Vietnam War Veteran B.T. Collins. The next regular meeting is scheduled for April 13, 1993, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: CVty Clerk CC 3-23-93 Page #11