Loading...
CC - 02-11-92APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY OF ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DATE. pot S- got FEBRUARY 11, 1992 BY r d GVi2G`0 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Imperial at 8:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman McDonald. The Invocation was delivered by Mayor Pro Tem Clark. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, McDonald, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Clark, and Mayor Imperial Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 28, 1992 - SPECIAL MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 28, 1992, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 28, 1992 - REGULAR MEETING There being no objection, approval of these Minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. - None I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Robert Angles, 9147 Valley Blvd., reported that he had sent a letter to Supervisor Molina requesting information on her staff. B. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, did not agree with a recent decision by the City Council regarding the upcoming California Contract Cities Association conference in Palm Springs. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. The City Clerk then administered the oath to all those persons wishing to address the Council on any public hearing item. A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM CRAIG TAKENAKA TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK WITH A PATIO ADDITION AT 7525 WILMAR PLACE, ROSEMEAD VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: IMPERIAL: The public hearing is now open. DONALD J. WAGNER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Mr. Mayor, before we take testimony it might be appropriate to have the Planning Director read the staff report. IMPERIAL: Yes. WAGNER: Go ahead, Peter. CC 2-11-92 Page #1 PETER LYONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: Mayor, members of the Council. Presented for your consideration is a request from Craig Takenaka, appealing a planning commission decision regarding Zone Variance No. 91-228. The variance application sought to allow the construction of a patio addition which would encroach into the rear yard setback. On December 16, 1991, the Planning Commission after hearing all pertinent testimony regarding the case denied the request based on the five findings listed on your report there. In addition, attached for your review are the following, I've put in the applicant's letter dated December 20, 1991; excerpts from the December 16, 1991, planning commission minutes; the Resolution No. 92-4; the site plan dated November 7, 1991; and the staff report and backup information. In summary, the applicant's proposal would reduce again the 13-foot rear setback to five feet along the length of the patio and as the minutes of the planning commission indicate the commissioners generally felt that a five-foot rear setback was just too small and that the applicant had the option of building a detached patio which would not require a variance. After closing the public hearing staff does recommend that the City Council concur with the findings identified in the Planning Commission resolution and deny the appeal of Zone Variance No. 91-228; however, if the Council should approve the request staff recommends the variance be approved subject to the conditions outlined in our staff report dated December 16, 1991. That concludes my report. I'd be happy to answer any questions. McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. Can you tell me why staff recommended to the Planning commission that it be approved and now they're recommending to the City Council that it be denied? Has there been a change in the factors? WAGNER: If I can maybe take the heat off the Planning Director there. Normally we don't you know staff yes went on record as recommending approval initially but just out of courtesy to the Commission we just as a matter of policy usually recommend that the Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation. IMPERIAL: I'd like to add to that. I received a letter from Mr. Tanaka. I went out to see the property and I gave this very serious consideration whether the Planning Commission report was accurate and on target or not, Mr. McDonald so... McDONALD: Mr. Mayor... Bob, is it appropriate for us to have this discussion prior to the applicant's... ROBERT L. KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Well, I think you should listen to the presentation. Mr. Mayor, as part of the public hearing I believe you received a copy of a letter from a Richard Berger, owner of 7541, 43 and 7543 1/2 east Melrose opposing the granting of the variance. That should be received into the record. IMPERIAL: I did not receive that letter. KRESS: It was a hand-written letter and I'll pass it along. WAGNER: Would you like me to make a copy of it? IMPERIAL: Did everyone receive a copy of this letter from Mr. Berger? LYONS: If I may, it was delivered late, we xeroxed it and put it into each of the mailboxes of the councilmembers. McDONALD: I received it. IMPERIAL: Okay. Mr. Tanaka, are you going to speak in favor of your project? AUDIENCE: My name is Craig Takenaka. My last name is T-A-K-E-N-A-K-A and I live at 7525 Wilmar Place. Mayor, Mayor pro tem and Councilmembers. I believe at the time the Planning Commission reviewed my request they didn't have all the facts. I have some additional photos here that maybe might shed some light that could CC 2-11-92 Page #2 TAKENAKA CONTINUES: help explain the situation. I have photos number 1 through 7. I have them numbered on the back. On.the first photo, it's just a straight on view of the house; the second photo is also a view of the front portion of the house but also I tried to capture the side yard and my plans, my intention is to enclose the side yard and use that for traditional purposes of backyard use because I have such small setback in the rear that my intentions are to build a wall according to plans I have submitted, build a wall about four feet high, then erect a fence above that so I could use it as a backyard. And photo three depicts more of the side property. Photo four is a closer view but I'd like to also emphasize that photo four shows about where I'd like to place the patio. There's an overhang that kind of protrudes out and I'd like to start the patio from there. It's approximately eight to ten feet from the corner of the house so from the street the patio at if it's built will not be too visible from the street and I think I have a photo-in here that tries to capture the ' view from the street; that is photo number three when you look at the photo. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. Point of information. Do we have a diagram of the plan? I see the one that you have in there. TAKENAKA: I have my engineer here, Mr. Chuck Lockman. Also, if you have any technical questions, Mr. Chuck Lockman, my engineer is present to answer any questions you may have. This basically is my property right here. The rear backyard currently consists from the corner of my house over so currently I don't have much of a rear backyard. What I intend to do is from here from the corner of this house right here extend a wall or a fence over to the current retaining wall. What I also intend to do is extend this retaining wall and enclose this open portion right here. IMPERIAL: That will be wall, not fence, am I correct? TAKENAKA: That will be wall and it will be approximately four feet high and from there I'll just put a fence above that to enclose this whole side yard portion. I'd like to use this side portion of my property as traditional purposes of a rear backyard. What I would like to do is build a covered patio, only a covered patio that would extend eight feet out and the purpose for that would be first provide shelter over my sliding glass window from the rain and wind and sun. Also, I have a dog that I would'like to have some shelter right there for the dog and in addition to that the Planning Commission had suggested a detached patio which would have to be a minimum of five feet away from the house. As you can see from the pictures on the side there's a slope. To build a patio would be somewhat impractical at this time and it's indicated in the picture. In addition to that, if I were to build a patio on the side it's visible from the street, it's ugly from the street. Also, it would block the chimney. It was suggested to have a patio attached to the rear fence and come in and have a five-foot gap between the house and the patio but I have some reasons why for me that's not practical. one reason is that one of the purpose is to cover my sliding glass window. I'd still have rain, wind, elements coming in. Also, it would be intrusive to my neighbor. I'd have a patio right on his property line. With this rain right now I've noticed how would I even slope this detached patio? See, if I have an attached patio I could at least slope it down and my plans are against the property line right there I'm going to have a little gutter that will drain downward across my property into drains and go into the street. In addition to that I've noticed that we've had many possumus, critters walking across the current wooden fence. If I had a detached patio now I have well entry ways for these possumus and other critters to easily come onto my property and intrude into my space. In addition, I've had a break in into my property and my main concern would be for a detached in the rear would be safety because I have had a break in, the police had to respond. I was fortunate we had our burglar alarm on. Someone could be lying in wait on top of a detached patio and surprise me whenever I or my fiancee came out. In addition, it's just my main purpose is for my dog, cover for my patio furniture and also cover for my sliding glass window and I feel that the most practical way to utilize a covered patio would be for it to be CC 2-11-92 Page #3 TAKENAKA CONTINUES: attached. I've also checked into whether the Fire Department would have any problems and they explained to me that as to residential they don't have any problems, they don't come out and check. I myself in my own work deal with many fire departments and I checked with the LA City fire department who confirmed the same approaches to residential homes. So as to whether there's a fire hazard I found that there isn't a fire hazard either. I feel that there's special circumstances in this case where my home is the only home of the 23 homes that were built by Owen Construction that was affected by what Owen Construction did because of suggestions by the Planning Commission. I have Mr. Carl Berg, real estate agent for Owen Construction, present to explain. He was in attendance through all of the approvals by the City as to what Owen Construction should do and what I found was at the time during the planning stages the City requested Owen Construction to widen the street and when Owen was forced to widen the street my home was the only home that was affected by it. My home was pushed back and that's why my home is the only one with the short setback of 13' whereas no other home in my tract, 23-home tract, would even have to get a variance to put up a covered patio. I'm the only one affected by this and I feel that all I would like to do is just enjoy what others are entitled to enjoy. That's the fact of having a covered patio on the property. I am willing to and my plans are to widen or enclose my side property so I can enjoy the traditional uses of my backyard. So, I'm appealing to you that you override the Planning commission's decision and allow me to have a variance so I could just build a simple covered patio. IMPERIAL: Thank you, Mr. Takenaka. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I would like to ask a question. by the street being widened? Are you talking about TAKENAKA: Wilmar. My understanding... is it okay if addresses because he knows the situation better than IMPERIAL: Now, Mr.-Berg, Mr. Takenaka indicated you You're representing Albrecht Realty, aren't you? What did you mean 4elrose or Wilmar? Mr. Berg I do. were from Owen. AUDIENCE: Yes, sir. My name Carl Berg. Carl is with a C and it's B-E-R-G, 267 South Burton, San Gabriel. I am quite familiar with the project because I am the broker who arranged with the owners of Owen Construction to purchase the land. Just as a little background, there were eight houses on Melrose and each of them had lots that were 300 feet deep, went from Melrose to the north edge of Craig's property here. Owen purchased eight lots on Melrose, a portion of a ninth lot on Melrose and all of a lot on Jackson and created the subdivision that resulted in 23 new homes being built, eight of them on Melrose, 15 on Wilmar. Wilmar did not exist as a street at the time. The original intent was to do a common area subdivision. The plans that were originally submitted showed 25 homes and in the process of negotiating with the Planning Department and the City of-Rosemead and it eventually came to public hearing that somewhere in the public hearing phase one of the Commissioners and I'm sorry I don't remember whether it was a Planning Commissioner or a Councilmember suggested that this looked like a nice development of that area for some of the oldtimers like Gary, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Imperial, remember that was one of the pieces of land that was being thought of for a possible location of a high school and so all the Councilmen at that time were quite familiar with that parcel of land and they were quite satisfied with the cooperation that Owen Construction gave the City in acceding to their wishes one of which was that somewhere in the process one of the City officials suggested that this looks like a nice development, I would suggest that we widen the streets so that they could be accepted by the City as a dedicated City street rather than a private street and that was done. The plans became a subdivision of 23 new single-family homes with no common area as opposed to the original plan of 25 and I do confirm what Mr. Takenaka told you that his being the first one that you see on the new street when the street got wider it took quite a bit off of that and did push his house closer to the rear property line than any of the other 22 in the tract. Owen made an effort to make Craig's house one of the more attractive ones. They CC 2-11-92 Page #4 • 0 BERG CONTINUES: tried to build houses that weren't real fancy and yet were nice well-built homes, hoped to meet the need for housing in that area. And I think Craig's house is a real nice looking house as you come in from Jackson on Wilmar, Wilmar comes to a cul-de-sac to our left as you proceed in. As you approach that and make your turn to the left to avoid Craig's house there is presently a retaining wall there and I understand from the engineers that it is permissible to raise that retaining wall somewhat more and it is our feeling that when the retaining wall gets built up to the height that is acceptable to the Planning Department that anybody riding in today's low-slung cars really is not going to see the proposed patio roof but even if they do it's my own personal opinion that a patio roof that is an extension of the home would really be nicer looking than a detached one that was sitting on the rear property line with a five-foot gap. My only other comment is that I did like to refer to the letter from Mr. Berger that you have there. I'm surprised and disappointed that he sent that letter but I think that since some of the Commissioners didn't even realize the letter existed that it's in the best interests of all the Commissioners to understand that Mr. Berger owns a piece of property on Melrose, he does not reside there. He has not resided there for many years. He has three tenants in that property. To the best of my knowledge it's the only piece of property in that area that has more than two tenants. IMPERIAL: I can understand that but he has what is considered a genuine concern whether he resides there or not. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to know just for the record what is the square-footage of the house and how many bedrooms? TAKENAKA: The house has five bedrooms, about 1210 square feet and one other thing that I would just like to add is that I never had any knowledge at the time I was purchasing too I even specifically requested Mike Owen, the president, I expressed my intentions to him to build a covered patio and enclose the side but at that time there was a concern because I wanted to go over the 6-foot retaining wall to enclose the side. I had Mr. Owen inquire with the City, he was dealing with Gary Chicots at the time and at that time it was expressed to me through Mike Owen that there was no problem with the patio, that the City's concern was going above 6 feet with the retaining wall on the side property. Well, that's why I modified my intentions to go only four feet and then build a fence and I found there's no concerns with that. IMPERIAL: There is a concern with me, I'm just one member of this Council but there is a concern with me. I would like to see at least a 6-foot fence there, wall., TAKENAKA: Rather than four. IMPERIAL: Yes, I think if you're talking about aesthetics, if you're talking about privacy, I think it would just clean the whole thing up instead of a wall and then a wood fence. TAKENAKA: I'll accommodate that too because my original intentions were to higher but I was just trying to adjust to accommodate... IMPERIAL: Yes. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this project? If not, anyone wishing to.... you wish to speak in favor of it? Okay. AUDIENCE: My name is Chuck Lockman. I'm with the engineering firm of Lockman & Associates and I'm the engineer that prepared the application for Mr. Takenaka. I'll be brief. I'd just like to reiterate.what was mentioned prior to my presentation here is that I think the development from an engineering standpoint is a very aesthetically pleasing development and I think it's one the City can be proud of. It looks very good and I think Owen's builds quality homes. In review of the City's variance ordinance I would just like to point out a couple of things that I don't think have been mentioned here. The application before you is to construct a patio in the back CC 2-11-92 Page #5 • • LOCKMAN CONTINUES: yard. This is not a special use nor does it constitute special circumstances for this individual development. As pointed out on the site plan the building sits approximately 10-12 from the rear property line. As mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing there was discussion about building a detached patio. In talking with the Fire Department and to do so in compliance with code would require that we would provide a 6-foot breezeway between the patio structure that would be detached and the home thus leaving a patio structure approximately 6 feet in width if it was backed right up to the property line. Additional fire requirements required that they would require an additional 3-foot setback from the property line leaving a patio structure of 3 feet which in my opinion is pretty impractical if you're going to comply with the fire codes. The other thing I would just like to quickly point out is that in providing this patio structure it would be built pursuant to code. It would not inhibit or provide a public nuisance or would threaten the public welfare in any way, shape or form. The other item I would like to point out is that if you look at Mr. Tanaka's lot it is of unusual shape. Based on the shape of the lot, the fact that the building was setback not only from its front axis to Wilmar Place but also from the side portion of Wilmar, in my mind would indicate special circumstances so based on the shape of the lot, the topography of the lot, this lot in itself should be granted special consideration. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to ask...this diagram that's in our packet, now how does that fit in with what you just said about the fire problems? LYONS: If I may, Mayor. We simply in the letter that Mr. Takenaka presented he mentioned various other patio covers that have been built in the area and we simply wanted to show you an example of a detached patio that he referred to and that is the site plan there that has been approved. CLARK: And that wouldn't have a problem with the fire? LYONS: No, that's correct. We don't have any problem. IMPERIAL: Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this project, this variance? I have a letter from an individual by the name of Richard Berger that says I Richard Berger owner of 7541, 7543 and 7543 1/2 East Melrose in Rosemead would like to agree with the Planning Commission's denial of ZV 91-228, the request of Mr. Craig Takenaka of 7515 Wilmar Place, Rosemead. I've lived in the area since 1943 and in my opinion too many patios once approved, built, passed and inspected have been converted into living quarters. Being unable to attend personally I hereby submit my letter, respectfully Mr. Berger. This as I mentioned before this is a valid concern and my question would be from you would you be willing to sign a letter of covenant that you will not convert that patio at any time? TAKENAKA: Yes, I'd be willing to sign that because I have no intention of enclosing it at all. IMPERIAL: Okay. That is the only letter we have then. If there's no on wishing to speak in opposition, the public hearing is now closed. McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. I move we override the Planning Commission's recommendation. BRUESCH: I'll second that motion. IMPERIAL: It's been readily moved and seconded. Any questions? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like a little more discussion on that wall. If you're going to recommend a 6-foot high wall and a wood fence on top of that? Is that correct? IMPERIAL: No. Just a 6-foot high wall. TAYLOR: That's clearly understood? CC 2-11-92 Page #6 • C~ IMPERIAL: Did you understand that, Mr. Takenaka? TAKENAKA: Yes. IMPERIAL: Okay. TAYLOR: That was the only concern I had on it. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I have a problem with this. I do sympathize with the owner. However, it was stated in the report that he submitted that the general plan for this area is R-1 and if we're going to take that reasoning the backyard for setbacks for R-1 are 25 feet and I find it difficult to I mean that zoning doesn't apply here and I'm just pointing out that this was one of the arguments presented and even in the R-2 we require a 20-foot setback and here we have going to a five-foot setback. It just doesn't seem consistent with policy that we've had on other places. I recall before I was on the Council there. was a request for a patio down in the southern portion of the city on a planned development area and the Council turned it down because there was not adequate setback and out of that problem came the policy that anyone buying a new piece of property in a planned development or planned area where there's several homes together would be notified and that what is there is all that could be there. There would be no addition so that the owners would know that this is what the limits were because they had already gotten a variance by the very fact that they had the property a smaller yard to start with. Generally that's the case on planned development areas. Do you recall that, Mr. Taylor? TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Mayor I do recall that and I objected to that particular property very specifically when that plan was brought to us because of this very thing we're discussing and now we're seeing the results of putting in small backyards. McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. I think that happened to be with a planned unit development. This is different. And that information is given to them as we requested in the CC and Rs where that is understandable they have it but in this case Mr. Tanaka almost asked or appeared to ask if he was able to put that on there when he was buying the home and it was implied to him that he certainly could and in the entire area of these 23 homes his is the only one restricted. There's others that have patios in the area. So, I think this meets an individual problem. It's something we take up every time we take up something new. We look at it individually. I don't think we need to look at the overall aspect of what the track record is, if there's a situation that's outstanding, that's extraordinary I think and it's not an encroachment on anybody else I think the letter that we got that was of some concern was about the enclosure and if he's willing to sign an agreement to that effect also come up with a single construction wall of 6 feet I think we should approve it. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I was the one that brought up about putting that in the covenants about the inability in a planned development not to build on. My concern then was-in this particular case about the patio, there was no side or backyard. They didn't comply to any of the open space requirements of our R-2 or R-1 property zonings. This though has a side yard which will as Mr. Takenaka said be used for the traditional purposes of the side yard. You have a very unusual spandrel piece of property there. On these unusual shaped properties sometimes what we traditionally say is the backyard becomes the side yard and vice versa because the placing of the house doesn't allow that person to do the normal type of development in the open space that they have. I would much rather see the attached patio than something that is standing out in the middle of that open space on a slope or up against the back line of the lot. It just to me seeing that coming around that bend would make it look less attractive. I think we really should allow some type of leeway when we have very unusually shaped properties like this and I'm in agreement with the owner right now. That spit of land that goes to the east can be used for that needed open space. CC 2-11-92 Page #7 • 0 IMPERIAL: My turn. Got a letter from Mr. Tanaka so I made a trip down here to the property and what we're looking at even with a retaining wall is not a safe area. We can deny Mr. Tanaka a chance to build his patio and clean that up and put a 6-foot wall there but as far as I'm concerned if I was in Mr. Tanaka's shoes I would say the hell with it and let it grow weeds then. That's the way I'd feel because he's trying to cleanup something that should have happened to begin with. Owen's if there was a problem should have never been able to build that property there. They did, that's water under the bridge. It's got a substandard yard and the only way you're going to make it look good and the only way you're going to keep it looking clean is to have him build that 6-foot wall there and bring that patio out. The man is willing to sign a covenant saying that he will not convert that to living quarters and I think it would be an asset to the City instead of a detriment if he was able to do that. So, gentlemen I've said my piece, I've went out there, what's your pleasure? BRUESCH: Call for the question. IMPERIAL: Question has been called for. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'm going to vote no on this; however, I do want to put those as conditions, the two conditions that you said, the 6-foot wall... McDONALD: You want them as conditions but you're not going to vote for it? CLARK: That's right. We do it all the time. A 6-foot high wall and that.he would not convert the patio. IMPERIAL: A letter of covenant. Okay. Anyone else? We have a motion and a second. Would you vote please: Vote taken from voting slip: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, McDonald No: Taylor, Clark TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like the minutes to be verbatim on this subject. I would also like the City Clerk to go back and retrieve the minutes (see pages 8a78c) when that property was approved with the developer, with the full discussion of the concessions that were made on that property and I'd like that brought back to the Council, that section verbatim, so we all understand how that property got the way it was. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE B. A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JOHN HUI TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM PARKING (P) TO M-1D (LIGHT MANUFACTURING WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY)-IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 2739 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROSEMEAD (ZC 91-186) The Mayor opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman McDonald requested that a security gate be installed to be kept closed when the businesses were closed. Councilman Bruesch asked how the property would be separated from the Laundromat. Vincent Tsoi, 507 S. Orange Avenue, Monterey Park, responded that this property would be separated from the Laundromat by a 6-foot block wall on the north side and a low wall with vegetation on the south. Councilman Bruesch was concerned with the loss of parking zones that acts as buffer zones and moderately priced residential properties and that this was not a proper use of the land and stated his intention to vote no. CC 2-11-92 Page #8 Councilman Taylor expressed the opinion that Edison regulated its employees' parking on that portion of streets. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that since this is a recurring problem, Edison would appear to be unable or unwilling to monitor itself. Councilman Taylor requested that the City Manager send a letter to Edison in regard to this problem, get a response, and report back to the Council on the result, with possible direction to the Traffic commission for recommendation. Councilman McDonald concurred that this problem might be stopped before it gets any worse. Staff was directed to send the letter to Edison. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked that the problem at Klingerman Park be investigated. There appears to be noise and general rowdiness at this location. Councilman McDonald asked that staff be directed to check this area over the next several weekends in an effort to alleviate the problem. Councilman Imperial stated that this is an ongoing problem area and suggested that the Sheriff's department should make the park part of their regular patrol. Mr. Bruesch drew attention to the rear of the park and a break in the fence. Young people are allegedly gathering golf balls from the golf course and breaking windows. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 TO P-D FOR LOTS LOCATED AT 7507-7533 MELROSE AVENUE AND 2462 JACKSON AVENUE The City Clerk administered the oath to all those present wishing to address the Council. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mike Mangana, representing Owen Development, 2035 S. Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, stated a request that this project be approved and expressed the willingness to answer any questions the Council may have in regard to this project. There being no one wishing to speak against the project, the public hearing was closed and the item was referred to the council for discussion. The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 623 tAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-2 TO P-D FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7507-7533 MELROSE AVENUE AND 2461 JACKSON AVENUE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that Ordinance No. 623 be introduced and reading in full be waived. Before vote could result Councilman Taylor asked for clarification of the size of the back yard for one lot that amounted to only 12 feet. Mike Mangana, Owen Development, stated that this particular lot had a side area that would be fenced in and included in the usable back yard space requirement. CC 3-22-88 Page CC 2-111- -92 Page #8a Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked how many units would have less than 1,000 square feet on the ground floor. Mr. Mangana stated that this figure should be less than 50% of the total units. Gary Chicots, Planning Director, stated that all the lots meet the 45% lot coverage requirement and at least one third of them exceed this requirement. Mr. Bruesch also expressed concerns with the elevation differences in this project as it relates to slippage in the event of heavy and prolonged rainfall. Councilman Taylor stated the opinion that the 2-1 slope was standard practice giving the physical nature of the particular property. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked that Condition #13, regarding the street trees, be amended to'add that root sheathings will be used in order to prevent future sidewalk problems. There being no objection, this was so ordered. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that the required fencing was also included in the conditions. There being no further discussion, vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so.,ordered. III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 88-17 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $307,243.04 NUMBERED 00755-00785/21630 THROUGH 21759 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD that Resolution No. 88-17 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked that staff provide a written memo in regard to the last item on Page #18. B. RESOLUTION NO. 88-18 - NAMING APRIL AS EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS MONTH The'following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUPPORTING GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN'S PROCLAMATION OF APRIL 1988 AS CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS MONTH MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Resolution No. 88-18 be adopted. Vote resulted: CC 3-22-88 Page #3 CC 2-11-92 Page 8b CC-F COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE GRAVES RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, Bruesch, McDonald, Imperial No: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-A MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 45785/7507-33 MELROSE AVENUE AND 2461 JACKSON AVENUE Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, asked how many original properties were involved in this project. Councilman Taylor stated approximately 16 homes on their own lots were involved and 23 homes will replace them in this project. The property is zoned P-D and more than 23 homes could have been built. Councilman Taylor asked if the fence required at each property line would be located at the top or the bottom of the slope. Mr. Chicots stated that the fences will be located to give the property owners the maximum degree of privacy. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM McDONALD that the Council approve the change to condition No. 11 of Tentative Tract Map 45787 to read as follows: 11. That any grading of the proposed project shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches above adjacent property except for the following lots: Lot 19 - 2.7 feet Lot 20 - 2.0 feet Lot 21 - 2.0 feet Lot 22 - 3.7 feet Lot 23 - 3.3 feet Any fencing installed in the rear of said lots shall be located on property line. Appropriate landscaping shall be planted immediately adjacent to the rear of property lines of lots 19 through 23 to screen the new development with the existing homes. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, Bruesch, McDonald, Imperial No: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION A. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEES - ROSEMEAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT LATCH KEY PROGRAM Joanne Schermerhorn, Latch Key Program Coordinator, asked the Council's support of this request to subsidize the childcare program. Mayor Pro Tem McDonald made the motion that the fees for swimming should be waived entirely. CC. 6-28-88 Page #5 CC 2-11-92 Page 8c The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 698 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM P TO M-D FOR PROPERTY LOCATED d AT 2739-43 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE (ZC 91-186) MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that Ordinance No. 698 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: Bruesch Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Bruesch stated that his no vote did not require reading the ordinance in full. III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 92-11 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 92-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $378,171.77 NUMBERED 1313-1337 AND 1345 THROUGH 1437 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that Resolution No. 92-11 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 - TRANSFERRING ENCINITA STORM DRAIN TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR MAINTENANCE The following resolution was presented to the Council for introduction: RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 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 NO. 1191 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 COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 92-12 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 2-11-92 Page #9 0 C. ORDINANCE NO. 697 - OF ROSEMEAD - ADOPT • PUSHCART VENDING IN THE CITY The following ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 697 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PUSHCART VENDING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that ordinance No. 697 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark No: McDonald Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. D. ORDINANCE NO. 699 = REQUESTING THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES TO FUND PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION - INTRODUCE The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 699 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD REQUESTING THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES TO FUND PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION FROM VEHICULAR SOURCES, ESTABLISHING AN AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, AND RESTRICTING THE USE OF MONIES DEPOSITED INTO SAID FUND MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that ordinance No. 699 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked who would be responsible for implementation of the program and felt it was a duplication of effort. Councilman Bruesch stated that 40% of the monies would be returned to the cities for air pollution control measures. Mayor pro tem Clark was concerned with what projects the money would be spent on and verified that the deadline for adopting this ordinance was March 31, 1992. Councilman Taylor was opposed to this as being just another way to raise taxes and Mayor Imperial concurred. After some further discussion, vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, McDonald No: Taylor, Imperial Absent: None Abstain: Clark No action was taken on this item. Councilman Bruesch asked that this item be returned on the next agenda with suggested uses for the funds. CC 2-11-92 Page #10 E F- r -I L-A IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-A and CC-B REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 20-21, 1992, IN SACRAMENTO CC-D AUTHORIZATION TO SETTLE PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY ALBERT MACK IN THE AMOUNT OF $400.00 CC-E AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND 1992 GFOA ANNUAL CONFERENCE, JUNE 21-24, 1992, IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-A APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 21188, 7411 HELLMAN AVENUE Councilman Bruesch was concerned with where the building would be placed. Chuck Lockman, representing the developer, stated that the building would be located on the corner away from the property line. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council approve Parcel Map No. 21188 and direct the City Clerk to arrange for the recordation of the map. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, No: None Absent: None Abstain: None Imperial, Clark, McDonald The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-B APPROVAL OF PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 Councilman Bruesch asked if entire street projects had ever been done exclusively with CDBG monies. Mark Fullerton, CDBG Consultant, listed projects on Jackson, Strathmore, Prospect and Whitmore and the Klingerman Storm Drain as some examples. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the City Council approve the City's proposed CDBG program, the projected use of funds and project budgets for fiscal year 1992793 and authorize the City Clerk to transmit this requirement to the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. AMAX, KTV . There being no objection, this item was deferred to the next regular meeting. CC 2-11-92 Page #11 B_ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CONSORTIUM REGARDING AIR QUALITY ELEMENT There being no objection, this item was deferred to the next regular meeting. C. VALLEY BOULEVARD PARKING DISTRICT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARROYO GROUP Robert Angles, 9147 Valley Blvd., stated the opinion that the City has adequate staff to perform this study in-house. Councilman Taylor suggested that the County should pay for this when parking restrictions on Valley Blvd. are imposed. Mayor pro tem Clark agreed that in-house staff was available. Councilman McDonald disagreed with Mrs. Clark, stating there was not sufficient staff to conduct such a survey. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH,'SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that this proposal be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, McDonald No: Taylor, Imperial, Clark Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared this motion defeated. :Councilman Bruesch requested this item be brought back with a scaled-down proposal using in-house staff with the Arroyo Group as a consulting service. VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. ANTI-GRAFFITI INITIATIVE Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, was opposed to a tax on spray paint and felt tip markers. Councilman Taylor approved of the penal provisions but was opposed to the tax. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the City support the efforts to place this item on the ballot. This motion died for lack of a second. B. DISCUSSION OF MEMO FROM JUDY HATHAWAY-FRANCIS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF RAIL CARS FOR COUNTY-WIDE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Mayor Imperial stated his intention to vote no on this item., Mayor pro tem Clark summarized the request being made by Ms. Hathaway-Francis regarding the use of rail cars and opposing the LACTC going into the rail car business. Ms. Clark stressed the urgency of this action. After some discussion, it was MOVED BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK that the City send a letter supporting the five-points 1) LACTC must standardize its purchase of rail cars; 2) LACTC should not own or operate a rail car or bus manufacturing plant; 3) LACTC must spend Los Angeles taxpayer money in the Los Angeles area to the greatest extent possible; 4) LACTC must acquire Federal and State support for rail car research and development by American firms and universities; and 5) LACTC should build complete lines to terminals and not end them at freeways. Vote resulted: CC 2-11-92 Page #12 Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark No: Imperial Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for February 25, 1992, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: C' Clerk MA CC 2-11-92 Page #13